1951-05-25

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 18, 1951, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) asked me to explain the difference between certain amounts that were given in answer to questions put by two hon. members concerning the site for the printing bureau in Hull. The answer is a lengthy one, but I think I should put it on Hansard.
The Federal District Commission Act, 1927, chapter 55 of the statutes of 1927, was amended by chapter 51 of the statutes of 1946 to provide for the establishment of the national capital district, which is defined in the amending act as the national capital district established pursuant to this act.
The responsibility for selecting the location of sites, inter alia, for public buildings within the confines of the national capital district is vested in the federal district commission by virtue of section 6A of the said act as amended in 1946.
The national capital planning committee was established by the federal district commission, under authority of order in council P.C. 1266 of April 18, 1946, for the purpose of drawing up a master plan for the development, improvement and beautification of the national capital district.
By letter dated December 5, 1946, directed to the Minister of Public Works, the chairman of the federal district commission advised that upon the advice of the national capital planning committee the federal district commission had' recommended the expropriation of a property in the city of Hull by the dominion government, the commission having approved the site for the erection thereon of the printing bureau and other departmental buildings incidental to the future building development, the said site being described by the commission as follows:
That area bounded on the north by Brewery creek, on the east by Maisonneuve street, on the south by Boulevard Sacre Coeur to St. Henri street to Marsden property line to St. Redempteur street
to Elgin street to Brewery creek, saving and excepting the property already owned and occupied by the Reverend Oblate Fathers.
The expropriation of the above described area, as approved by the federal district commission, was further authorized by the governor in council under P.C. 842, dated March 6, 1947.
The first question referred to by the leader of the opposition in sessional paper 107-D, dated May 17, 1951, as asked by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness), was as follows:
How much was paid for the site on which the building is being erected?
The answer is as follows:
Estimated cost, $496,817.56.
The figure contained in this answer is an estimate covering the cost of the acquisition of land acquired for the purpose of the erection of the printing bureau proper, and is exclusive of the land contiguous thereto that was acquired for the purpose of future building development in accordance with the approval of the federal district commission. Of this estimated cost, the sum of $455,080 has to date been paid. The balance of $41,737.56 is the estimated cost of the settlement covering the remaining lands in the printing bureau site proper as aforesaid.
The second question referred to by the leader of the opposition in sessional paper 107-B dated March 27, 1950, as asked by the hon. member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. Hodgson), was as follows:
What was the cost of the site of the proposed printing bureau in Hull, Quebec?
The answer was:
Cost of the site to date, $824,979.72.
The figure contained in this answer represents the cost at that date of the lands acquired in accordance with the recommendation and approval of the federal district commission for the purpose of erecting thereon a printing bureau and development of the contiguous area for government buildings in the future. The figure is, of course, not exhaustive of the cost of the acquisition of the entire area, but will be supplemented in accordance with the adjudication by the exchequer court, or settlement reached, as the case may be.

Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



EXPENDITURES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES- REFERENCE TO INFORMATION GIVEN IN SESSIONAL PAPER

Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a return tabled, the day before yesterday in answer to a question of mine which was passed as an order for return. The information is given to me in sessional paper 75-A.
The point I wish to raise is that the answer given in the return is not an answer to the questions asked. To illustrate the point, let me say that the question was divided into two parts, the first of which was as follows:
What was the total paid by the Department of National Health and Welfare for professional and special services in the fiscal year 1950-51?
Then the second part of the question read:
What person, persons, firms or companies received payments of $25,000,or more under this heading in the said year, what was the actual amount of each payment, and for what service was the payment made in each case?
The answer to question No. 1 gives the sum of $5,012,422.15, and this figure is followed by two paragraphs which give general information .as to the type of services for which this amount was paid. However, there is no answer to the second part of the question. No names are given, and there are no specifications as to individual amounts paid to persons, doctors or hospitals. I would ask, therefore, that the question be restored to the order paper so that a more complete answer may be given.


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to see that it is completed. I believe the information would be of assistance to some persons in my hon. friend's constituency, and I shall see that the information is supplied.



STANDING ORDERS


Mr. Matthew MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) moved: that the second report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Wednesday, May 23, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 336, to incorporate the Baptist Union of Western Canada.-Mr. Diefenbaker.
Bill No. 337, to incorporate the Ukrainian Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Saskatchewan.-Mr. Knight.
IMr. Fournier (Hull).]
Bill No. 338, to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 339, for the relief of Marie Laure Jacqueline Patenaude Racine.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 340, for the relief of Muriel Edna Glass Fryer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 341, for the relief of Emma Laronde Bell, sometimes known as Emma DeLaronde Bell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 342, for the relief of Birute Elena Vaitkunaite Akstinas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 343, for the relief of George Keith Henderson.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  C. E. Johnsion@Bow River: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. On May 21, as reported at page 3219 of Hansard, I asked a question of the Minister of Labour or, in his absence, the parliamentary assistant, in these terms:
In the absence of the Minister of Labour I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary assistant. Has the minister been informed that today's Citizen contains an article stating that the national advisory council on manpower does not think it necessary to conduct a national registration at this time? In view of the fact that this is an important question, would the parliamentary assistant care to make a statement?
The hon. member for Verdun-La Salle (Mr. Cote), parliamentary assistant, replied:
I am aware that the Minister of Labour has followed very closely the work of the advisory council on manpower. I would not go any further at this time. I shall be pleased to bring the question to his attention.
Is the Minister of Labour prepared to make a statement now?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I was out of the house for the first few days of this week, including the day the question was asked. The council met last Friday and Saturday, as was pointed out by the parliamentary assistant. I did keep in touch generally with its proceedings. Upon my return yesterday I received its report. I am now studying the report, and it is my purpose this week to submit the relevant parts to my colleagues.


Mr. Johnston:: Will the minister make a
statement with regard to it?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The subject was initiated
during the discussion of my estimates a week ago, and I shall be pleased to discuss it further when my estimates are again before the committee.



MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development. What progress has been made in the discussions with the United States government as to a proposed amendment to the Migratory Birds Convention Act in respect to the province of Newfoundland?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), as he informed the house some time ago, did arrange for officials of the Department of Resources and Development to speak with their opposite numbers in the United States government. Since it was the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) who brought this to my attention in the first place, both by correspondence and through discussion, I think he would wish me to say that I have, in reply to the letter he wrote me, given him a full report of developments to date.
I believe I should add that the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley), who represents a constituency to which this problem is of great concern, has been interested in the matter. I have told him about the arrangements arrived at with the United States authorities.
I received notice of the question just as I came to the house, so that I have not had an opportunity to review the correspondence. Briefly, however, the arrangement is that pending a further study of the problem, which may take a year or two, to obtain statistics and information of various kinds as to rate of growth, decline in population and the like, the section of the act concerned will not be applied; and the officials in Newfoundland responsible for the administration of the act have been so informed.


Gordon Francis Higgins: We do not care so much who gets the credit, so long as we are allowed to have these birds in Newfoundland.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Defence forces-
245. To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services and defence research and development, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $3,831,270,000 including authority notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $1,924,170,835 and commitments against
Supply-National Defence future years of $1,907,099,165 against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1951-52 will not exceed $1,595,050,000 of which $183,050,000 will be provided from section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, as supplemented by item 246, $1,412,000,000.
Mr. Pouliol:: The minister said he would make a statement with regard to the distribution of hose couplings.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Last night I outlined the provisions that had been made in the estimates to provide assistance to the provinces as a result of our agreement in February last with the provinces in respect to the standardization of hose couplings. The hon. member asked me particularly as to the procedure to be followed. The procedure would be for the civil defence authority, in this case the minister of social welfare in Quebec, to advise as to the priority claim of a community in relation to the over-all plan. As a result of that information there would be negotiations between the federal and provincial governments to provide assistance along the lines I have indicated.


Mr. Fleming:: Last night the minister agreed to furnish to the committee a functional break-down of the present staff, and I presume that he will also be in position to furnish a break-down of the functions of the staff as previously proposed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: First of all there is the civil defence co-ordinator, who is assisted by an administrative officer, grade 1; an administrative officer, grade 3; two administrative officers, grade 6; an administrative officer, grade 7; three technical officers; eight technicians; one messenger; three clerks; five stenographers; six typists.
There are 32 positions available, but as I said last night, there are only 27 filled. In addition there are a cook, storeman, cleaners and helpers at the school here in Ottawa. As I said last night, plans exist for 60 others but there has not yet been final determination as to these; it would depend on circumstances.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Surely some thought must have been given to the functional distribution of the enlarged personnel that was apparently involved in the first plans of the government in connection with this matter. When this question was first raised last night the Minister of National Defence said that the staff was to be 80. Now the Minister of National Health and Welfare has indicated that 27 positions have been filled, and he cannot say what will be done about the others. When thought was; first given to this matter and something was done that led to

Supply-National Defence a tentative decision to have a staff of 80, surely some planning was done or thought given to the functional distribution of the 80. Cannot the minister give us any information in that regard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I gave it last night. As I have said, there are 32 positions available on the staff of the civil defence group as such. When civil defence was under my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, he did not have the personnel in his department that we have in the Department of National Health and Welfare. He had to give consideration to filling positions with persons such as we have in large measure in the Department of National Health and Welfare. I have not indicated the extent to which the 60 remaining posts will be filled in accordance with the plans which were conceived before the transfer took place. That will be decided upon in the light of circumstances as we see them. I can give no more complete answer than that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it is most regrettable that the minister cannot give us more information. Surely he can tell us what work will be assigned to individuals if these other positions are to be filled, or how many personnel from his own department are going to fulfil the functions in whole or in part of civil defence administration. Surely there is information of that kind available.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already given it in
principle, but I shall give it again. The original intention was that preliminary training of civil defence officials would be done in Ottawa. There have been three courses at the school since January. Since that time some thought has been given to the problem, and it would seem-this is not the final decision-best to decentralize the training apart from the technical instructions which we will continue to give. The school in the province of Quebec started today, and two other provinces are opening schools. The result is that it will not be necessary for us to have as many instructors as we had originally contemplated, nor will it likely be necessary to have as many employees at the school, in the way of cooks and the like, to work along with the inevitable stenographic staff, and so on. If we carry out the present policy of decentralization we shall not need as many personnel in that particular. It is circumstances of this kind that have to be looked at.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I should like
to proceed with the question I was asking yesterday. In the first place, I want to say to the minister that he rendered a great

service to the Canadian people when he awakened them in the stirring speech he made not so long ago. Now that the Canadian people have been awakened to the danger of war, they wrant to know what to do with regard to civil defence.
Last night the minister indicated that the procedure for any community to follow would be to get in touch with the provincial representative who had been appointed to look after civil defence within the province. My interpretation of his remarks has been approved by the minister. During the last war the civil protection in the House of Commons consisted of placing sandbags on each of the floors near the elevators. Later, in order to improve the situation, wooden boxes were provided, painted red, in which the sandbags were placed. That was supposed to provide fire protection for this fireproof building in time of war. I remember I brought one of those sandbags to Mitch Hepburn and he could not believe that that was the kind of protection we had in the House of Commons. Finally before the end of the war the boxes and the sandbags in them were taken away.
Civil defence is a much more serious thing than some people believe it to be. I take it seriously myself, and I give credit to the minister for his effort. I agree that he has one of the most difficult jobs of anyone in the government at the present time. We have heard for years about the danger of war at this spot in Europe, that spot in Asia or the other spot in Africa. All over the world there are danger spots. The newspapers for a long time have been printing stories to the effect that we may have war at any moment. We must be ready for it. I am extremely glad that the minister is in charge of civil defence in this country.
The minister spoke about hose couplings. I do not see the use of hose couplings without hose. This morning I telephoned to the bureau of statistics to ask them if they had any information about the length of fire hose available in each municipality. The answer was:	We have no information. I was not
at all surprised at that answer. Now that the minister has spoken about hose couplings, I will ask him if he has any information about the length of fire hose available in each municipality of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am afraid that, offhand, I
could not answer that question; but I should be glad to try to get for my hon. friend as quickly as possible the information he has requested.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister, and I agree with him. But may I tell him that if

the chief co-ordinator were worth his salt, the first thing he would have done with his stenographers, his skeleton staff and the others, would have been to write mimeographed letters to the various city clerks or city treasurers asking them what they already had in the way of protection against fire; because in the event of war, the greatest hazard is destruction by fire.


Mr. Blair:: You will get that information in the next census.


Jean-François Pouliot: At any rate, my hon. friend agrees with that. So long as he agrees with it, I am satisfied.
What is important for the chief co-ordinator and his staff to do is to come down to earth and to use a little bit of common sense and a little bit of perspicacity in their dealing with this problem, which is a difficult one because of the size of the country. It is impossible to copy what is being done in England for civilian protection, in view of the fact that the area of Canada is ten or twenty times greater than that of England. Our problems are entirely different. The United States have a much larger population than we have, and our problem is different from that in the United States. What the co-ordinator should do, under the able direction of the minister, would be to use his own judgment in considering local conditions in Canada as they should be considered in order to face the problem as it must be faced.
Suppose that I am in charge of civilian protection in my community. Any member may be in that position, or anyone else may be. Suppose I get in touch with the provincial representative who has authority within the province. There is not enough fire hose available. I write to him. He gets in touch with Ottawa and he does not get the hose; he gets couplings. What can we do with couplings without hose? If the department has bought such a large quantity of couplings, I wonder from whom it has bought them. Who is the manufacturer or the inventor of that device? How is it that the department is buying so many couplings and no hose at all?
Then there are to be considered the necessary water connections by means of which to fill the fire hose with water in order to fight a fire. What are those facilities in each municipality? I wonder if the minister has some information about that matter, through the ohief co-ordinator.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think my hon. friend will agree, since he asks me the question directly, that it is important to recognize, as he himself has said, that our situation in Canada is not the same as that in the United Kingdom.
Supply-National Defence The United Kingdom is a unitary state. Here we operate not only through the municipalities but also under the federal character of our country through the provinces. Fire protection is primarily a matter for the provinces and for the municipalities. The question that my hon. friend has asked, quite properly, in his zeal and his interest in this matter, is one which I am sure he will agree should also be addressed to another authority.
We have had to recognize the federal character of our country in trying to build up an organization, as he himself in his remarks so far has suggested we should. We have had a meeting with the provinces. We have pointed out to them, as they have pointed out to us, that one of the great hazards-particularly in respect of potential atomic attack, let us say, or bombing-would be the resultant fires and that more damage and destruction can come from fires than from anything else. We have said: How can we assist in providing for the greatest amount of mutual aid? That is what will be required if a disaster should come; and we all pray that it will not.
The situation is that the hose coupling is an extremely important factor, because there is no standardization throughout the country. The aim of the provinces-as a result of the decision which they themselves have come to through their fire marshals, their municipal bodies and so on

is that the federal government should give them some assistance in the installation of hose couplings in order to make it possible for community A to use the hose of community B, something which is not now possible in many cases because of a lack of standardization of the hose couplings. As to any community that may be short of hose itself, that is a matter on which no province has yet advised us that it requires financial assistance. I will note what my hon. friend has to say in that regard, and see what the situation is. But I am sure that with this brief explanation with regard to the standardization of hose couplings he will appreciate how important this matter is. It is not only important in one province; it is important as between one community and another on the border; in my own community, in Windsor, for instance, and in Detroit, and in the two Sault Ste. Maries. In those cases, by the use of adapters, it is possible to meet the problem that arises out of the lack of standardization.
I thank my hon. friend for what he has said about the other phase of the question, and I hope I have given him a satisfactory answer.

Supply-National Defence


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for the good will he shows. When I ask questions about this matter it is because it is of vital importance. My constituents are interested in it, as are the constituents of every other member. It is not so much a question of money as of co-ordination with respect to the part Ottawa is to play under the authority of the minister himself. With regard to hose couplings, if the diameter of the hose is not standard how would it be possible to use couplings except of different sizes? And by the way, who manufactures those couplings; who is the inventor?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are many kinds of couplings. That is one of the problems in trying to get standardization.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister again. Will these couplings be distributed by Ottawa to the provinces or to the municipalities?


Mr. Marlin:: No, Mr. Chairman. We are not providing the full cost of standardization of hose couplings. We have undertaken to provide one-third of the cost, with the provinces and municipalities to supply the balance, either the provinces alone or the two together. They will make their own purchases; they will decide as to the need. Those are questions we must leave to them, and which we propose to leave to them. This will be an assistance grant which will not completely cover the cost, the expenditure this year being in the neighbourhood of $900,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister again, and I appreciate what he has said. In my humble view all possible information with respect to civil defence should be publicized to the limit. It cannot do harm to anyone, and it will help us all to know how the authorities, whether municipal, provincial or federal, will look after the protection of the Canadian people. If we spend $900,000 on hose couplings to be distributed by Ottawa to the provinces or the municipalities, or if we have a certain number of steel helmets, it will be impossible to distribute them in an emergency because that emergency may arise so quickly. Everything happens in such a little time, especially when jet planes are used. If a jet plane should attack any part of Canada, would it be possible to send hose couplings and helmets from Ottawa to the part of the country that was bombed? I do not think it would. I tell the minister again that it is not so much a question of money as one of good, plain common sense and co-ordination.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very glad the minister says hear, hear; and I mean co-ordination between all those interested in the protection of the country, which means everybody.
Now I am coming to another matter, in which I hope I shall have the support of the minister in charge of civil defence, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Defence Production and the Minister of Transport, because this matter concerns several departments. It is a fact that in any future war the best protection will be mobile units, and there are no units more mobile than the R.C.A.F. Therefore it is of vital importance to have airports at as many places as possible in this country. Many were built during the last war. We need many more good, large airports. In my humble view they would serve as a better protection for the country than any helmets or hose couplings or other devices of that kind.
In my county, for instance, we are 120 miles from Quebec city, where there is an airport; we are 80 miles from Mont Joli, where there is an airport; we are 100 miles from Caribou, Maine, where there is an airport. If I want to come to Ottawa by air I have to drive to Quebec city, a distance of 120 miles, or to Mont Joli, a distance of 80 miles, or to Caribou, a distance of 100 miles. There is no protection. For the protection of this country I hope the minister will discuss the matter with the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Defence Production and the members of the cabinet. For a time there was some discussion about the establishment of an airport at Cacouna in my constituency.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a fine constituency, too- a lovely country.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know, and it deserves protection, as does the whole country from Newfoundland to British Columbia, and especially Fraser valley, the garden of Eden of the west. The Minister of Defence Production told me one day in the railways and shipping committee that he wanted just a word from me with regard to the building of that airport, for which surveys had been made by the Department of Transport. That was in time of peace, and naturally there was an agitation about it. Now that we are in a period of emergency I hope the government will consider the matter anew and will not hesitate to build an airport at Cacouna according to the surveys and plans already made by the Department of Transport. No one will dare create any agitation about it, because it will be for the defence of this

country. If an airport is built in every constituency of Canada it will be the best way to protect Canadian people.
I am not going to insist further because the ministers who are here now realize the importance of the matter. The Prime Minister, who lives in my constituency during the summer, knows how important it is. I hope that will be done at the earliest possible opportunity, and I will defend the action of the government just as I would defend a similar action in any constituency in Canada. I will ask the minister of civil defence as well as the Minister of National Defence to tell the committee what they think about my suggestion.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: As I listened to the hon. member for Temiscouata I wondered what the coupling would finally be coupled to; I knew there would be something for Temiscouata before he concluded.
The minister mentioned the fact that our country is different from a unitary state in that we have the federal system; that is perfectly true. But the United States also has the federal system. I intend to ask some questions relating to plans in the United States and to the extent to which the experience of the United States is being applied in Canada. The hon. member for Temiscouata said it is mainly a question of co-operation-


Jean-François Pouliot: Co-ordination.


John George Diefenbaker: -co-ordination, and not the expenditure of money. I do not quite follow him in that. There are certain responsibilities of the federal authority. There may be a good reason why this very important subject of civilian defence was transferred from the Department of National Defence to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but the reasons, other than the capacity of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, are not immediately apparent.
As I see the situation, this is one subject which particularly comes under the Department of National Defence. It is part and parcel of our plans and of the expenditure of this country for national defence. True enough, the final responsibility for providing personnel is a matter for the provinces and the municipalities. But in the national field the decisions as to shelters, medical stockpiles, the dispersion of industry, emergency housing and public works to facilitate civilian defence preparedness on a scale adequate to meet the expected needs, must fall upon the federal authority. I have discussed this matter with a number of mayors and councillors of municipalities, and I do not misinterpret their view when I suggest to the minister 80709-217
Supply-National Defence that, while they are prepared to supply voluntary personnel to meet the responsibility of fire fighting and the like within their respective municipalities, they are not receiving today the direction from the national authority that they have a right to expect.
The minister has only recently taken over the responsibility in this direction. He made a most persuasive and inspiring speech on the subject of civil defence. But more than that is required. The publication of the pamphlet to which he has made reference will go part of the way, but I feel that an intensive educational campaign must be launched by the federal authority. People do not want to believe there is going to be atomic bombing of Canada. The thought disturbs our equanimity. We like to look at the situation as though we were protected and insulated by many thousands of miles of sea and a northern ice cap. It is going to require an educational campaign to make the people realize the danger in which we find ourselves.
I looked up some of my clippings of a few years ago, and I have one here which I picked at random. It is dated April, 1948, and says "Big radar fence against aircraft". It went on to say that it was going to cost a great deal of money, several billions of dollars, and that it had been started in 1948. This is 1951, and the least said about that big radar fence the better. Those were some of the plans. Today the people have been lulled into a false sense of security. One of the lessons that came to me as one of the representatives of this parliament at the parliamentary conferences in Wellington and Canberra was a sense of deep foreboding as to the possibilities that faced our country, the other countries of the commonwealth, and the United States. Our people need to be aroused in this connection. Voluntary work has its place, but you can only get voluntary workers when, in the national field, there is the type of message given by the minister and other members of the government that will arouse the people to a realization that there are going to be no second chances this time.
The first point I bring to the attention of the minister is the need for direction and an educational campaign. Second, as to the matters to which I have referred, such as shelters, medical stockpiles, the dispersing of industry and the like, the responsibility rests upon the federal authority. It is all very well to say we have a distribution of authority among the federal, provincial and municipal governments. That is true, but the provision for civil defence in the national field must, as I say, rest upon the national authority. The only way in which that can be done is by grants in aid. I would not go before any

Supply-National Defence members of this government and ask for expenditures unless I believed the plans were either self-liquidating or necessary. An expenditure of $4-5 million this year is totally inadequate to meet the responsibilities with which we are faced. You cannot place that responsibility upon the municipalities. Today the municipalities are bearing rates of taxation that do not permit any further increase. National civil defence, administered on the provincial and municipal levels, means assistance in coping with the danger in which we find ourselves today as a nation.
One of the best articles I have read on this subject-I am not going to quote from it in extenso-is "The Defence of the Free World." It is a record of the proceedings of the academy of political science at a meeting held in November last. There is an article on the subject of civilian defence by the director of the New York state civil defence commission. He points out that we must realize one fact that was not generally admitted at this parliamentary conference. Most of the members were of the opinion that Russia had the atomic bomb. One of the representatives at that conference, who held a high position in the British -cabinet during the days of war, claimed that Russia did not have the atomic bomb. But the general consensus was that it had, and that it would be used without warning. That is the view taken by this authority who spoke at the meeting to which I have referred. He accepts the principle outlined by the minister, that the administration cannot be one of a central agency by itself. There must be the central agency for direction, but the basic responsibility for the carrying out of the national policy must rest with the -municipalities, under the direction of and in -co-operation with the provinces.
In the United States, detailed mutual assistance agreements have been entered into between states and between cities. The states of New York and New Jersey have entered into a joint agreement for -their defence, much as the northeastern cities bordering on the Pacific have entered into a joint pact binding on each of them. The general plans of the various states are coordinated in a national plan. But in this country, if we are to have something that is in keeping with the dangers that face us, the municipalities must receive a greater measure of assistance than is contemplated by the estimates now before this committee. The municipalities-and again I refer to the speech that was made before the political science association-have the responsibility of organizing volunteer welfare services to receive, feed, clothe, shelter and provide 
essential social services for evacuees in an orderly and efficient manner.
These local responsibilities can be discharged by the municipal authorities; for they have the agencies for them. They have the health department, the police force and the engineering organization in the respective cities. But in the larger field, in the field wherein national responsibility is preeminently of importance, I feel there has been too little assistance given nationally.
Before this session terminates I hope that the minister will be in a position to bring before the house a co-ordinated plan, which will provide for a larger measure of financing on the part of the national authority, and that financial assistance will be given through grants in aid provincially to the end that municipalities will not have added in their respective jurisdictions a financial burden which they cannot properly assume.
The other day I was speaking to a farmer in my own province of Saskatchewan. He pointed out the dangers inherent in communist infiltration in this country, and he brought to my attention something that I had never thought of before. He mentioned the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba-and the same applies agriculturally throughout the dominion-and the extent to which mechanization has taken place in the last fifteen years. Suppose war broke out tomorrow and the gasoline stocks in Saskatoon, Regina, Calgary and Edmonton were attacked. Where would there be production on the prairies with the mechanization we have today? That is one of the responsibilities involved in civil defence. It is a responsibility that is capable of being discharged by the municipalities through their police forces and through the setting up of voluntary police organizations. But before they do that they must receive from the federal government a national plan which may be co-ordinated and which will result, in place of the present haphazard plans, as they naturally are at this time, in a plan directed federally but administered through the provinces and the municipalities so far as detail is concerned, but dependent for its implementation on the national leadership.
Our people need to be aroused to the state of affairs existing at the present time. There is no more important problem before the Canadian people today than that of preserving our civilians; for they themselves will indeed be in- any front line. Should war come between Russia and the United States of America we would find ourselves in a desperate position. While the plans of 1948

were made and announced in eloquent terms, in 1951 we are little further ahead.
I want to say one thing more, Mr. Chairman. In the statements I have made there is no criticism of General Worthington or of his capacity and ability, or of the committees operating with him or of the various municipal defence authorities that have been set up. All that they have today is a general picture. They need a sense of direction from the national authority, and they need much greater financial support than is being given today.
Civil defence is as large a part of our national defence as is the obtaining of manpower and the production of the necessary sinews and munitions of war. It is for that reason that I suggest the Minister of National Defence give to the Minister of National Health and Welfare greater assistance than these estimates indicate is to be given.


Mr. Low:: I have been keenly interested
in what has been said about civil defence. We have talked about fire-fighting equipment and standardizing hose couplings. We have heard discussions about warning systems, decontamination, radiation detection, medical equipment and all that sort of thing, and it has all been interesting, timely-


An hon. Member:: But academic.


Solon Earl Low: It is academic; that is true. I
listened with great interest to what the hon. member for Lake Centre said, and I must declare here, Mr. Chairman, that with practically everything he did say I found myself in agreement. I do not intend to repeat what has already been said in the debate. However, there is one thing that I should like especially to emphasize. After saying that not enough money has been voted or set aside this year for civil defence, I am quite certain-


Murdo William Martin: May I interrupt for a moment? Constant reference is made to that. It would be very helpful to me if I could have some suggestions. I should like my hon, friend to know how much is being spent in the United Kingdom and how much is being spent in the United States. He would be very surprised to realize the extent to which in Britain they are spending. This year they are appropriating $20 million. In the United States the Senate is appropriating $86 million, and the House of Representatives $84 million. I ask my hon. friend to compare these figures, and particularly to compare the situation in Britain with what it is here.	.
80709-217J
Supply-National Defence
This is not essentially a problem involving dollars and cents. The reason I rise at this time-I am sure my hon. friend will not mind-


Solon Earl Low: Not at all.


Murdo William Martin: The reason I rise at this time is that, as the minister responsible for civil defence, I am quite properly expected to try to give some leadership in the matter, and that I a,m endeavouring to do; but it would be unfair to insist on leadership on the one hand, and to say something on a matter with which I did not deal, unless I was given some proper direction.
I want my hon. friend to know that we have discussed this matter with the provinces. We have discussed this matter with the corresponding officials in Britain and in the United States. The plans that we are following are based upon consultations that we have had with the provinces, the United States and the United Kingdom. If in the light of our obligations, which primarily I believe must be to the armed forces in time of total war; if after providing for all these things, I believe in my heart-as I see the whole picture, as my advisers see it and as the government sees it-that more should be appropriated, I will not hesitate to make the necessary recommendations; but I do not propose to make a recommendation for the expenditure of any more money than is necessary.
I believe that the real emphasis is where I sought to place it, where Sir John Hodsoll, the greatest authority on civil defence in the world, because of his own experience, places it, namely, on the mutual aid principle, on every man and woman in this country or in the free world who has to face, unfortunately, the challenges of modern total war.


Solon Earl Low: I thank the minister, and I appreciate this statement. But I still find myself thinking that perhaps some country in the world-and it might as well be the Canadian government as any other-will take the lead, and will not wait to find out what the United States has done or what Great Britain has done.
What do we care about comparisons? Let us look at the situation as if we were facing the real problem tomorrow. Let these other countries fiddle along, if that is what they want to do. I do not believe in that procedure, at all. I do agree with the minister however that there is no sense in appropriating and spending more money than is absolutely necessary for civil defence. But let us be sure that we spend as much as we should spend at this time, so that our people will be prepared.

Supply-National Defence


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree.


Solon Earl Low: That is all I am concerned about. There is one practical aspect of the matter with which I should like to deal briefly- because I believe most other factors have been discussed fully. This practical aspect concerns the leadership that can be exercised by the government and by members of the House of Commons generally.
I was interested the other day in a statement emanating from Dr. William T. Salter of Yale university, who said:
The best protection against atom bomb attacks would be for everyone to pack blood plasma and bandages into a suitcase and go to live in the country.
Well, that is all very well for those who have a bag, in the first place, and who in the second place can afford blood plasma and bandages, and a place to live in the country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would be the worst thing to do, in any event.


Solon Earl Low: I did not find myself in too much agreement with that part of the statement. He did make a further statement however which, to my mind, is of importance, when he said:
We should follow a program of decentralization and of converting all our households into small granaries and medical units.
With that I thoroughly agree-and there are good reasons why. If we are wise we will counsel every Canadian family to make small granaries and medical units of their household. That is a practical thing that the people could do for themselves, if they were given just a little leadership and were offered a few suggestions. Some people, acting upon advice received from wise leaders, during the course of the last year or two, and at great pains, have accumulated a year's supply of certain foodstuffs which, today, they are constantly using and replacing. As I said, this was done painfully and at great sacrifice. They are using and replacing this supply today with newer material. An examination of what they have laid in will show that the permanent core of this store is a bushel or two of wheat in some sort of airtight metal container. That constitutes the small granary.


Mr. Hatfield:: And a flour mill.


Solon Earl Low: And perhaps a small flour mill, like one I now have. It is a well known fact that, with wheat and water-just those two things-human beings can survive almost indefinitely.


Heber Harold Hatfield: And a flour mill.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, or even a small coffee grinder. With a little wheat and water a human being can exist in fair health for an


indefinite length of time. It seems to me the domestic store should contain not only the wheat in an airtight metal container, but water in stone or glass containers which would always be kept filled with fresh and clean water.
We all know one of the greatest dangers to any city in a time of air attack or bombing would be the contamination of the water supply. Under these circumstances it seems to me that one of the most practical things the minister and his staff could do would be to make the people of Canada in their homes, from one end of the country to the other, conscious of the necessity of doing something for themselves. And one of the best things they could do would be to set up in their own homes small granaries and medical units.


Heber Harold Hatfield: There has been considerable talk about hose couplings. Does the minister mean hose couplings or hydrant couplings? Surely he does not mean hose couplings?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, we mean hose couplings.


Heber Harold Hatfield: But you do not need hose couplings unless you have hose. In Canada we do not have uniform hydrants in our different cities. What we need is couplings to fit the hydrants. I suggest we do not need hose couplings unless we have hose, but I am pointing out that we require different couplings for different types of hydrants. In one town or city we will find hydrants with threads differing from those in other towns and cities. Then, throughout the country, we find Old hydrants with couplings of different sizes. What we need is hydrant couplings, not hose couplings at all.


Murdo William Martin: I will have my hon. friend's observations brought to the attention of all the provincial governments, who have asked for hose couplings.


Mr.  C. E. Johnsion@Bow River: It would seem that in the last while the minister has been getting into some difficulty and has been subjected to a good deal of criticism.


Murdo William Martin: I thrive on it.


Mr.  C. E. Johnsion@Bow River: In this instance criticism is good, because there is no subject of greater importance than that of civil defence. Nothing could cause greater havoc in this country, nothing could bring about greater disruption in every sense than a poorly-organized civil defence.
In my view however the measure of success or failure in this respect must be the progress being made, and progress that we can see. While I listened to the debate I was wondering what actual and visual preparation is being made in, let us say, the city of Calgary. In the event of attack where would the people

of that city go and what would they do to seek assistance? It is not enough to say that we are preparing this or that, and that sooner or later we will have it done. The people should be aware of it now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If that is a direct question I would answer from a report from the government of Alberta.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to hear it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government of Alberta advises us that a number of cities such as Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge and Medicine Hat are in an advanced stage in training- and then there is other information which, obviously, is quite secret. However, I would be prepared to show it to the hon. member privately. We are advised by the government of Alberta that civil defence directors have been appointed in these cities, and that the planning there has reached an advanced stage.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am glad some cities in the country are making progress. Again, Alberta is taking the lead-with the assistance of the minister, of course. They are advising him, and perhaps helping people in the more backward cities of Canada to use that knowledge.
I have listened carefully to the discussion, but I have not heard reference made to the progress in connection with communications and transportation. We can talk all we like about preparations for civil defence, but without proper co-ordination between air, rail and highway transportation systems, we would be at a loss. No greater confusion could come about in the case of air attack than that which would be caused by lack of proper co-ordination between our transportation systems.
This was brought out clearly not so long ago when the railroad employees were out on strike. We saw then what might have happened without highway transportation. We would have been in a very bad position. In order to add to the effectiveness of the statement I have made I should like to quote from an article which appeared in "Bus and Truck Transport" magazine and which refers to statements that had been made by General Worthington, the civil defence co-ordinator. I think this article is so applicable that I should take the time of the committee to read it. This article appears on page 35 of the May issue and is entitled, "Ottawa forms defence transportation committee." A paragraph entitled, "Tremendous Problem" reads as follows:
Civil defence faces a "tremendous problem of transportation," General Worthington told the committee at its first meeting. The success or failure of civil defence in Canada could hinge on communications and transportation, he said.
Supply-National Defence A major function of transport would be the supply of aid to a devastated area from nearby communities. As well, it might be necessary to organize evacuation and to move great numbers of people over great distances. The wide separation of Canadian cities presented a problem not encountered in Europe, nor, to so great an extent, in the United States.
Where an area was chosen as a reception centre it was estimated that the number of people who could be taken in from other cities was 50 per cent of the area's normal population. That alone would be an immense problem and, for such emergencies, there must be an over-all co-ordinated plan.
"In the case of railways we must know where their rolling stock is and how best we can use it," General Worthington said. "In addition we have to face the fact that we may lose some parts of the railway system through enemy action and, in those cases, road transport must be ready to step in.
Air transport will be needed to bring in the most vital commodities to an attacked area-most likely medical supplies and medical personnel. This would be done by the heavier aircraft; lighter aircraft would be employed in air reconnaissance for fire fighting and, perhaps, highway traffic control." Turning to the role of road transport, General Worthington said two main needs were to arrange adequate fuel supplies and traffic control. "Police control inside the cities will probably not be too bad," he told the defence committee. "There will be civil defence traffic routes, and only authorized vehicles will be allowed to use them. But we will have to anticipate traffic jams on the open roads, away from target areas, because we feel that as soon as an attack begins, many people will jump into their private cars and the highways may become blocked. One job of this committee is to figure out how highway traffic can be controlled and kept moving."
Apparently a government-sponsored civil defence transportation committee was set up early last month in this city. It has held its initial meeting but I understand that it will not meet again until the latter part of July.


Paul Joseph James Martin: One of the working committees is actually meeting this afternoon.


Charles Edward Johnston: So far as I know the minister has not mentioned this very important subject of transport communications.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I did. I said also that one of the working committees is meeting this afternoon.


Charles Edward Johnston: I mean the minister has not dealt with it in this debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I dealt with it in my main statement.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not think this committee has attached the importance it should to this matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is of great importance.


Charles Edward Johnston: Certainly its importance is not recognized. As General Worthington has said, all our defence preparations depend entirely and immediately upon the proper co-ordination of the transportation and communication systems.
3404	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
I am glad the minister referred to the preparations being made in Alberta. In discussing this matter with cabinet ministers there I know that they are cognizant of the necessity of doing something and they have been working on this. Concrete results have been achieved. But I think we should know what preparations have been made in the other provinces.
For example, take the matter of air raid shelters. What preparations are being made in Canada in that regard? What preparations are being made in Ottawa to provide air raid shelters? I do not know of one. If we were attacked by atomic or other bombs, where would we go? It is all right to say that we are working on it, but an air attack can come suddenly. We know from experience that the enemy does not wait upon our convenience to attack. If an attack should come unexpectedly, where would we go in this city to seek assistance? There is not one place that I know of, and I do not think any other hon. member knows of one place. Those are the things that people should know if they are to avail themselves of the facilities which are supposedly there.
Every assistance should be given to the committee which the government has set up to co-ordinate the communications and transportation systems. It should also be made clear just exactly what progress has been made and what are the future plans.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know that the hon. member for Temiscouata has a rather important engagement so I should like to answer a question he asked which I should have answered more promptly. The hon. gentleman will appreciate that the matter to which he referred is one over which I do not have direct jurisdiction, nor has my colleague, the Minister of National Defence. I am sure that the Minister of National Defence and I will be most anxious to see that the effective representations made by the hon. member for Temiscouata are brought to the attention of our colleagues, the Minister of Defence Production and the Minister of Transport. We shall take great pleasure in passing on the information at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. MacDougall:: Mr. Chairman, at this
time I do not wish to pick a fight with anyone who holds views with respect to civil defence which may be diametrically opposed to those which I hold, but I do feel that the discussions so far-


An hon. Member:: Louder.


John Lorne MacDougall: I was called to order the other day and berated for speaking too


loudly. I have modulated my voice this afternoon so that I shall not offend the sensitive auricles of various hon. members of the committee. In that regard I might say that it is not often that in a matter of this kind I disagree with my good friend the hon. member for Lake Centre. But it seems to me that in the matter of civil defence we are now speaking in terms of dollars and cents. Personally, I do not believe that is the proper tactic for us to adopt at this time. I think it will be more or less universally agreed by everyone here that there is resting on the individual member of the House of Commons a responsibility which is as great as, if not greater than, that which rests on the government.
Certainly our plan of civil defence at the present time is not complete, and it is not perfect. I do not think that anyone in his right senses would expect it to be. But I would imagine that, in the near future, with the vote which it is now stated is going to be given to civil defence preparations, certain things will be brought about with respect to information for every hon. member. Rightly or wrongly, it is my considered opinion that the preparation and the successful carrying on of civil defence, as far as we are concerned, can best be accomplished in the 262 federal ridings of the Dominion of Canada by the members who sit in the House of Commons, provided they will go back to their constituencies and tell them what is needed after we have more information than we have at the present time and when the plan has gone forward to a more complete state of fruition than it has reached now. We should individually and collectively make it our bounden duty to see to it that we stress the importance of what is needful with respect to an adequate civil defence.
I do not think that the most essential factor in civil defence is the granting of a lot of federal money; but I believe that one of the essential factors is that the people have some information about the potential destruction in the event of an aerial attack. Let us put it this way. We know perfectly well that the destruction from the Hiroshima bomb was colossal. We know now-it is no secret- that had the victims of the Hiroshima bomb had adequate medical attention within forty hours or forty-eight hours, the casualties resulting from radiation would have been cut by at least 40 per cent. We also know that when you have atomic explosions-this is also no secret, and I am not quoting from any book-if there is a warning that is understood by all the people, atomic casualties will be cut by another 40 per cent. In my opinion, therefore, it is logical to conclude that one

of the first things that should be done by the members of parliament and the government is the giving of consideration to a universal system of warning that will be the same in Newfoundland as it is on Vancouver island, in the province of British Columbia, and all the intervening terrain.
How can we best bring about a decrease of casualties? I think it is generally known that in all the industrial areas of all the provinces of the Dominion of Canada we have the nucleus of a volunteer service that cannot be matched in any other country in the world. I refer now to that great body of men and women who are fully trained and qualified in first aid. In my opinion they can and ought to be considered a volunteer nucleus from which can develop in each locality across the Dominion of Canada a tremendously important factor in the reduction of casualties. That force is completely and entirely voluntary. It will not cost the government of Canada a dollar to put that force into operation. I am convinced that every man and woman in that group would be delighted to tutor, maybe once or twice a week, various groups in his or her particular community who would be able to carry on any first aid work in a most adequate manner.
With respect to atomic explosions, we also know that in hospital areas and congested metropolitan areas the likelihood of casualties among physicians will, in all probability, go to fifty per cent. If that is true-and I believe it is-then every one of us must do something with regard to the education of his constituency in that matter. (Let us consider my own riding in the city of Vancouver. It has the largest hospital in the province of British Columbia; I refer to the Vancouver general hospital. We have there a tremendous area of hospitalization. Suppose an atomic bomb should hit close to or upon the Vancouver general hospital. The loss in professional services-those both of nurses and of physicians and surgeons- would immediately be at least fifty per cent.
A great deal can be said for decentralization of hospitalization; but the fact remains that we must deal with the situation as it now is. The. hospital is there, the facilities are there, and the personnel are there; and they are going to remain there unless something in the nature of a flood or a holocaust of some sort or other occurs without Uncle Joe pulling the string. We must face the facts with respect to this whole situation. Candidly, I believe that we are about to get a great deal more information from our civic defence authorities. At the present time there is no
Supply-National Defence one in any part of Canada or the United States who can say that we have the complete blueprint for security in the event of an atomic explosion. But as individual members of the House of Commons we at least have a duty to perform when we go back to our constituencies, namely to give to the people what, in our opinion, might be the potential of an atomic explosion anywhere in our district. That is something for each of us to do. Certainly the government can help by giving the necessary information; but whether it is an atomic explosion, a flood or any other holocaust a great deal of the aid given in the first instance will be voluntary, coming from your next door neighbour.
This afternoon there was some mention of couplings, and one hon. member said he did not mean hose couplings but hydrant couplings. I am not going to enter that argument-


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no argument on that subject. Do not confuse the people.


John Lorne MacDougall: We know perfectly well what happened at Rimouski not so very long ago. We also know what has happened in various parts of Canada during the last few years when great fires have occurred. The hydrant facilities in adjoining municipalities have not been co-ordinated. Certainly to standardize the threads on all hydrants across Canada would cost the taxpayers of this country hundreds of millions of dollars, and I do not think that expenditure would be justified. I do believe some consideration should be given, however, if it has not been given.' already, to the use of adapters that could be utilized on hydrants of adjoining municipalities where the threads are different. In many instances I believe that would reduce the number of casualties and would be a much cheaper way of giving adequate protection in the event of a large fire.
Furthermore, while I may be old fashioned in my ideas with respect to the response of the Canadian people in the event of attack, I think there is something in the spirit of the early pioneers on the prairies that could be adopted right across Canada in both rural and urban areas. On my way down to the opening of this session I stopped off in Saskatchewan to visit my brother. He has a huge barn, though I do not know whether it is as large as that of the hon. member for Springfield. As has been stated this afternoon, the farms across Canada have been largely mechanized, and many large barns are not used to anything like full capacity. I am as sure as that I am now speaking to you that in the event of any holocaust in Saskatchewan
3406	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence -and I use that just as an illustration, for I am sure the same thing would apply from coast to coast-the neighbourliness that has been born of hardship and experience would be a tremendous factor in providing aid and assistance to those in need. We also know that in a good bank barn you are perhaps as well protected as you could be anywhere. In my view the voluntary aspect of civil defence is far more important than the expenditure of a large sum of money for the purchase of equipment which may not be used this year or within the next five years.
So I leave this thought with you, Mr. Chairman, for what it may be worth. I do not believe the government should be too severely condemned because some people, perhaps without adequate information, feel that the appropriation for civil defence is not large enough. To me the voluntary part of the program is much more worthy of consideration than the pouring of millions of dollars into equipment that may or may not be used. We know perfectly well that Uncle Joe is not going to telegraph and tell us if and when an atomic attack is going to occur. So I conclude on a note very similar to that on which I opened. If we are to adequately meet the needs of civil defence it must be particularly by way of voluntary effort. I do say the government should give the lead, and I am thoroughly convinced that the minister will do so, and will give every member of this house the necessary information so that we may go back and impress upon our constituents the importance of civil defence and the part to be played by voluntary effort. If we do that I am quite sure the response of the Canadian people will be adequate to meet the need. I am also sure that if the minister finds it necessary to increase this appropriation you and I as taxpayers will have no objection at all. We should always remember, however, that in these matters the neighbourly feeling counts for much more than a terrific expenditure of money.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to repeat what I have said already in my initial statement, but in the light of the discussion that has taken place I believe there are some things that will have to be said in the public interest.
I do not desire to shut off any hon. member, but I thought I should say now that I do intend to try to more or less close the matter and bring it to a head. If any hon. members wish to speak before I do so, they have a perfect right; I am just giving an indication of my intention. I believe many of the things that have been said have perhaps arisen because hon. members have not had an opportunity to really see what has been going on not only in Ottawa but in every province and [Mr. MacDougallJ

almost every major municipality. If anyone wishes to anticipate me, I am prepared to wait, but I should like to more or less summarize what I have to say in order to bring the discussion to a conclusion more readily than perhaps would otherwise be the case.


William Gourlay Blair: It is not my intention to speak on this subject at length. Last September I covered the different types of warfare as far as Canada is concerned. I dealt with gas and chemical warfare, explosive bombs, atomic bombs, and those things which might represent a danger to our country. I must say I was pleased last evening when the minister came out with a complete account of his expenditures. If we had been given that statement by the Minister of National Defence in the early part of the debate we might have been a good deal further along in the consideration of the estimates. For that part, I congratulate the minister. I was disturbed, though, last night by one part of his speech to which I should like to refer. He said, as reported at page 3387 of Hansard of May 24:
I am certain that as long as I am in charge of this difficult assignment I am not going to go ahead and build up an organization which in the event of disuse would rust and do more harm than good.
Further on he said:
We may make a big miscalculation; there can be no doubt of that possibility, but certain risks have to be taken in this matter. Those risks have to be borne not only by the armed forces but by everyone in Canada, for that is the nature of total war. No minister of the crown or anyone else can alter that unfortunate fact.
I said I was disturbed when I heard him use those words. I have read the statement several times this afternoon, and there seems to be a tone in the minister's speech which is suggestive of something like gambling. We are going to take a chance. In so far as the defence of this country and of our people is concerned, I do not believe we should ever take a chance. So far as money is concerned, let us compare the amounts allotted for this purpose. We are going to spend something like $5 billion on the armed forces for our defence, while we are going to spend something like $5 million for the defence of the people of this country. It is rather difficult to understand this, because the conditions of warfare have changed a great deal in the last twenty-five years. If we have to come to grips with an enemy-there is one enemy in our minds-the thing that would determine our success would be the large manufacturing and industrial capacity of Canada and the United States. If the war followed the pattern of the last war, in which we bombed the Ruhr valley which contains the manufacturing centres for war materials for

Germany, it would naturally follow that our enemy would bomb our industrial areas and the industrial areas of the great country to the south. That is something to be considered, because the bombing of those areas has become part of warfare as it exists at the present time.
We are striving, and other nations are striving, to put industries which manufacture war materials, such as guns, aeroplanes and that type of thing, out of business. For that reason, I believe it would be a possibility that this country and the country to the south of us would be bombed. For that reason I feel that, even as the hon. member who just spoke, while a great deal of the work done in such an emergency would be voluntary, yet there is an onus on the government to build up a very elaborate plan for the defence of this country. The same thing happened in England during the last war. During the bombing of the industrial areas the civilian population suffered, and suffered severely. Practically one-third of the houses were destroyed at that time, along with the casualties which existed at that time. The same condition could exist in Canada. I do not like that note in the minister's address in which he intimated that we are more or less going to take a chance. We are not going to build up an organization that is going to rust. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the time will ever come when we should take a chance on this country or the people who live in it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to interrupt,
but I think this is rather important. I believe the hon. member would agree that I did not say we should take a chance. I said that there is a great risk involved, which is quite a different thing.


William Gourlay Blair: There is a risk involved in
not doing something, and that is the point I am advancing. We cannot afford to take that risk. If we can spend $5 billion on the army, navy and air force for our defence, which will probably be used outside this country because we hope the war will be as far from Canada as we can have it, $5 million seems a very inadequate allotment for the protection of the people living in this country.
I wonder if the estimates of the Minister of National Health and Welfare have been cut down in favour of the estimates of national defence. We must draw the line some place. So far as disuse is concerned, sir, we may do a great deal of this work by voluntary effort, and by the use of voluntary agencies existent in Canada at the present time. After all, a great deal of this work must fall on the government, and there will be expense. This afternoon we were talking
Supply-National Defence about hose couplings. There is no reason why the same type of hose couplings could not be in common use across Canada. We have had disasters in Canada before. In the last year we had to deal with one in the Fraser valley; we had a flood in Winnipeg, and we had the terrible fires in Quebec. Those things are happening and causing a great deal of suffering. This agency would not be allowed to rust in disuse because of the things I have cited that have happened in the last year or two. They may happen again in the future.
So far as the training of people in the care of casualties is concerned, that is not something that is going to rust. If the lessons in the care of casualties and first aid are well learned, people are not going to forget them. They can be of use at any time. The stockpiling of medical supplies and food are things that can be used at any time. The hon. member who has just spoken mentioned the possibility of hospitals being bombed. That shows us that arrangements should be made outside those areas to take care of casualties, because the hospital is just as apt to be destroyed as any other place. In his reply, I would ask the minister-after all he is at the head of this organization and it is a difficult assignment, but I am going to ask him these questions-to indicate what arrangements have been made in the matter of an air raid warning across Canada.
Let us suppose that by means of radar we are warned of the approach of enemy planes. Is there one warning that will be spread all across Canada? So far as sirens are concerned, I wonder how many municipalities in Canada have sirens that could warn the people? Some days ago we heard some noise from a new siren on the Hunter building. Then, this morning, I read in the newspaper that we are going to do some excavating and dig down about two floors below the parliament buildings to have some protection. Possibly there are some members who would like to crawl into such a hole during these debates. But this matter is not going ahead, and if this emergency should occur at the present time we are still taking chances. Will the minister tell us what has been done by way of keeping the water and food supply in Canada free from contamination. Are the large reservoirs of the cities protected? I doubt if any municipality in Canada is mounting a guard or taking any steps to maintain a proper water supply for the people.
As of now, how many of our people have been trained in chemical and germ warfare? Has this matter been brought before the people by means of booklets or pamphlets,
3408	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence telling them that something like this could happen? The average person feels that this is something one reads about. In looking at this whole picture, they feel that it cannot happen here. We are only talking about this. I wonder what surveys have been made in Canada for bomb shelters. I wonder how far the training has advanced in all the cities and towns of Canada where there are possible targets. How far has the training of people in the care of casualties advanced?
I ask the minister what has been done about stockpiling food and medical supplies, and whether these supplies have been placed in areas outside the large cities where they could be reached in the event of the city being bombed. Lastly I ask the minister this question: How far have we gone into the possibility of fire either from bombs or from fifth columnists? Certainly the fire brigades of every town or organized municipality in the country should be receiving training along that line. As p,art of their training the municipalities might like to have their own air wardens or their own fire wardens, apart from their fire system, because, as you will realize, in a city even the size of Ottawa, the present fire brigade would find it difficult to control the whole community.
In the last war in England they set up fire wardens who took charge of certain areas, and they had fire watchers. It was a good organization. These people stayed on; they worked for weeks, months and years. But I again come back to the minister's statement of last night which, while he has corrected the statement that I made, did smack somehow of a feeling that, well, we will take a chance. We are going to have to take a chance; there is no way out of it. We will just have to do the best we can.
It may be that out of the asking for more money in this debate today for civil defence nothing will happen, but I would like to believe that the minister, or any member of the government, if nothing happens in the next three years, will not say: There now, we knew there was no occasion to spend this money. We, your wise government, did not spend this money and inflict taxes on you because we felt nothing was going to happen.
I ask the minister now: Does he honestly feel that nothing can happen? If it could happen, why cannot we be prepared and fully prepared? The amount of $5 million that we are spending is only a drop in the bucket in comparison with the $5 billion we are spending for defence. Therefore I think the minister finds himself in the position


where he feels that he would like to do a great deal more than is being done.
I do realize it is difficult to establish an organization across Canada which would be adequate for the protection of this country. No doubt the size of the country and the population make the matter of civil defence a difficult question to deal with. But even with that, we have certain cities in certain parts of the country which would be vulnerable targets in the event of an attack such as has been visualized by some hon. members since the debate started.
Therefore in closing I feel that even if these things that we are doing for our protection-and I include the lot from air raid shelters to the training of civilians-even if these are never used, we should still go ahead and protect the people of this country, and, so far as the training is concerned, ensure protection against fire. That brings up the matter of hose couplings which has occupied a great deal of the time of the house. They could all be used at any time. Having suffered from disasters, three or four in the past year or two, we could still with advantage use the set-up for civilian defence in the time of an emergency, even if there were no enemy attacks.
Again I cannot help comparing the small amount set up for civil defence of this country with the total expenditure on defence, and drawing the minister's attention to the fact that in war as it exists at the present time, and looking back at the first war. civilians suffer, and they sometimes have been in more danger than the people in the army. It is part of present-day warfare; it is part of the strategy of the enemy air force.
This matter brought on, both last night and today, a debate in which I am glad to say a number of members were interested. But I say to the minister that the advice of the members and their feelings in this matter are expressed in an attempt to safeguard the people of this country and to help them in the event of a tragedy of this type coming to pass.


Mr. Stewart (Yorklon):: Mr. Chairman, my remarks in connection with this debate will be very brief. I am inclined to agree with the speech made by the hon. member for Red Deer yesterday who said that in his opinion, in dealing with these defence estimates, the house had wasted practically four days. In that connection I have noticed that our friends in the C.C.F. party have not spoken in this debate, and I am presuming that they are more or less in accord with

government policy. There has been very little criticism from the Sociil Credit group; but we find the grand old Conservative party going to bat in connection with this debate, and we also find them not in agreement. The aged member for Nanaimo apparently has disagreed-


Some hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Alan Carl Stewart: He has been in the house a long time, and he disagrees with the more youthful member from the other seat in British Columbia. They have disagreed on procedure. We find today-


Mr. Pearkes:: On a question of privilege, there has been no disagreement between myself and any other member, and I am not so very old, after all is said and done.


Alan Carl Stewart: Well, the record of the house speaks for itself.


Mr. Graydon:: He looks younger than you do.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege, I merely want to confirm the hon. member for Nanaimo in both particulars.


Alan Carl Stewart: Well, Hansard will speak for itself. If these two gentlemen were in agreement then a great misuse has been made of the English language.


George Randolph Pearkes: By you.


Alan Carl Stewart: Thus we find today again that while the hon. member for Calgary East said yesterday that in all fairness to the government in the last year or so considerable progress had been made in the matter of defence, yet we find the hon. member for Lake Centre today saying that little had been accomplished since the year 1948.


An hon. Member:: One is a soldier.


Alan Carl Stewart: One is a soldier, that is correct.


Mr. Harkness:: On a question of privilege, the hon. member for Yorkton should consult Hansard again and keep his records straight. I was speaking yesterday on certain things that had been done in the army, navy and air force. The hon. member for Lake Centre was speaking of civil defence entirely. They are two different things.


Gordon Graydon: You are all balled up.


Alan Carl Stewart: That is all right. Apparently my hon. friends in the official opposition are getting balled up and are getting excited now, and even the young soldier who has just joined the house is getting impatient. I say that my friends of
Supply-National Defence the official opposition ought to get more coordination. I have stressed that all along. They have disagreed on procedure; they have disagreed on whether the government is doing a good job or not.


Mr. Drew:: No; there is complete agreement on that.


Alan Carl Stewart: Let me make this prophecy. I have exhorted them in this house previously to try to get together and get a little co-ordination in their affairs, or they may not even be the official opposition.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We are co-ordinated; your thoughts are not.


Alan Carl Stewart: I think I am correct in saying that the official opposition has successfully wasted at least three days in talking on procedure in this house. I quite agree with the hon. member from the Social Credit ranks who said that Stalin himself would have enjoyed the performance put on by the official opposition in this house in the last few days. The inference today again, as it was last night, was that the government was not spending enough on civilian defence. We have before us billions being spent on defence generally, and very little if any criticism has been offered by the official opposition in -connection with that expenditure. Thus far they have argued chiefly about procedure.
Are we to take it for granted that they are satisfied with the main estimates for this department? They imply that, because of the vote for home defence, the government is taking a chance, that it is not going far enough, and that it is not spending enough. Well, I would point out that in connection with home defence the total amount is not being spent by the federal government. One must always take into consideration the amount being spent by municipal and provincial governments.
Anyone who has followed the procedure in connection with bombing and air attacks knows that the best defence for Canada is on our northern boundaries. He must also know that that defence is being looked after by the Department of National Defence. One of our greatest expenditures is for that purpose. He should also know that a country, even one as intelligent as Russia, is not going to bomb small communities throughout the Dominion of Canada. If they did get through our defence of radar and our aircraft in the north country, they would not do that. That is only common sense. Certain targets will be picked out in the most strategic centres in Canada and the United States, if Russia happens to be our enemy. For instance it is idle for the leader of the Social Credit

Supply-National Defence group to suggest that our people should flee to the barns, and establish their homes there. I do not think any intelligent nation would bother bombing ninety per cent of the farms in Canada, even if they could get across our boundary. They are not going to fly from Russia in their large bombers, and waste atom bombs on cities such as the city of Yorkton, or such places. They will pick out certain strategic points of military value. I doubt even if they would bother with the city of Ottawa.
The chief defences should be in those places of military value, and should not be wasted. I was down to California again last winter. Down there they have a population of about eight million people congested in a small area. Those are the places where-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman-


Alan Carl Stewart: You make your speech, buttercup, later on. You are up all the time; now give somebody else a chance.
Any nation of intelligence-and the Russians have some intelligence-will pick out those centres of heavy population and strategic military value. They are not going to waste bombs on small communities throughout Canada. There is no reason, of course, why those communities should not have firefighting equipment; but it is idle for anyone to urge that the government and the department should spend money in every community of Canada to build dugouts, concrete shelters and everything else for the protection of those people.
If Russian planes did get through they would pick out strategic points in Canada- and I believe the government of this country has intelligence enough to have picked out those points, and to have arranged for their protection, to see that those points are amply protected.
But the idea of spending millions upon millions of dollars in the defence of towns and villages that have no more chance of being attacked than the man in the moon is just a waste of money. Further, those members who advocate such a thing are unnecessarily exciting the people. In two wars we lost 100,000 in killed, and if another war comes it will be a total war in which civilians as well as others will be attacked, and will be in the same position as the reserve troops. While we do not want a war, it might have the healthy effect throughout the dominion of uniting the people a little more closely together than they have been in the past, through equal suffering.
No one in Canada should get the idea that he or she will be free of trouble if another war breaks out. But, as for the spending


of more money on shelters, and all that sort of thing, I say the government would be well advised to pick out the strategic points first and to make sure that they are protected. The government is well advised to spend money on our northern defences, and all that sort of thing, to keep the enemy out of the air.
I do not think the small points in Canada need worry much about having large bombs dropped on them, nor do they need to follow the suggestion of the leader of the Social Credit party, and flee to their barns. I do not think that will be necessary.
As I said at the outset, I did not intend to take up much time.


Mr. Hees:: Oh no.


Alan Carl Stewart: My young friend, the young soldier of the last war, is very good at interrupting. If he has a question to ask, then let him get up on his hind legs and ask it.
The official opposition have complimented the government upon the selection of General Worthington. We have a good man at the head of civil defence, a man who has been across the Dominion of Canada. I am sure that in my province of Saskatchewan he will receive splendid co-operation in every city.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Alan Carl Stewart: They are not stampeded, at all. I think members generally from the west, in all parties, are not receiving protests from their cities-at least they have not said so in the house. Even Rome was not built in a day. The fact that there are not complaints from the larger urban municipalities in the western provinces shows that the people are reasonably well satisfied with what is being done, and are reasonably satisfied with the contribution they are making. They are not complaining about what the federal government is or is not doing in the matter of civil defence.
As I said earlier, the best civilian defence is military defence through our air force and our navy, and the troops we are training. That is the best defence we could have. If it comes to a total war, we will all be in it, in any event-and I would repeat that that might do more to mould Canada than anything we have seen in the efforts of the official opposition in the House of Commons.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to open my mouth this afternoon; but following the speech of the hon. member for Yorkton I am wondering whether we should not ask the director of civil defence to have a squad here, to take care of us.

This matter of civil defence is serious. The minister has been stressing that point constantly, and I think hon. members agree as to its seriousness. My understanding is that this debate started last night only. It has not yet gone on a full day. Why hon. members suggest there has been delay and waste of time in this important matter I, for one, do not understand.
There may be some reason for the hon. member's indulging in personalities, and in describing people as being youthful or aged -but what that has to do with an important subject of this kind, I cannot see. I think if the hon. member were to look into his speech he would realize, upon reflection, that this whole matter of civil defence is one requiring the most careful consideration of people throughout the country. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said this afternoon, it is as important to each member as it is to the government. Surely that is consistent, is it not?
I would not think it proper to indulge in the kind of personalities and the type of discussion we have been having. The official opposition may be hamstrung in numbers, but it is trying to do its job as best it can. If it believes this is the way in which we should proceed, then surely it ought not to be criticized as it has been criticized this afternoon. This is an important subject-and 1 leave it at that.
I have risen to ask the minister one or two questions. He has had discussions with the provinces, and plans have been worked out. I am speaking only for the province of Newfoundland. A director of civil defence was appointed for Newfoundland, but he resigned some three months ago and no one has been appointed in his place. I do not know what has happened and I do not believe anyone else does.
I do not think we need to enter into the realms of imagination to consider Newfoundland as being strategically important. There are United States bases and airports located there, and it is important in operating a convoy system. But we do not know what is happening. The answer may be that which was given by the hon. member for Lake Centre, that it is a question of finance. Perhaps the province has not the money to take care of these matters. I submit that the minister should make a full explanation this afternoon and tell us what has been done in Newfoundland.
There has been nothing in the newspapers in the past month to indicate what has been done. The minister may be able to explain. I feel like the hon. member for Lake Centre,
Supply-National Defence and with all due respect to some of the previous speakers, this is something in connection with which the government should give full direction and I think also that the great bulk of the money should come from the government.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the hon. member for Yorkton and other Liberals who may hear members of the opposition making suggestions to the minister or criticizing what the minister has been doing will not take us to task and introduce into this discussion petty party politics. Personally I think that this matter is of too great concern to the people of Canada for a minister or any government supporter to place any criticism offered on a party political basis.
I am not in agreement with the hon. member for Yorkton when he says that the people of Canada are reasonably satisfied with what has been done in the matter of civil defence because no complaints have been registered with the minister. He indicates that if they were not satisfied complaints would be pouring in to the minister. I think the people of Canada just are not civil defence conscious at the present time. They are not turning their minds to civil defence.
As one hon. member has stated already, we hate to think of ourselves being in the midst of war. We hate to think of war coming to this country. It is difficult for the people of Canada to realize such a possibility and as a result very little thought is given by the ordinary citizen to the matter of civil defence.
I agree with the minister that civil defence is primarily a co-operative and volunteer effort on the part of the body of Canadian citizens. I realize that the essence of the job is education. It is not just a matter of spending money; it is not merely a matter of buying equipment or providing it for the provinces and municipalities; it is a matter of teaching the Canadian people what to do under certain circumstances and what precautions to take. It represents one of the biggest jobs that any government has to do.
I feel that that job cannot be done without a nucleus of full-time personnel, not only in each province but in each county or township or area of the provinces. If an effective job is to be carried out by volunteer workers there must be a core of full-time, well-trained people to give direction and leadership to those who are ready to volunteer their services and to assist in getting these ideas across to the people as a whole.
I presume the minister has given some thought to the contrast between the amount provided in the estimates for civil defence and what is provided for the other branches

Supply-National Defence of national defence. I understand the estimates provide $5 million for civil defence, but we find that $8,621,000 has been allocated in the national defence estimates for professional and special services. That is much more than is allocated for civil defence purposes. The minister's department and the provincial departments will require a considerable number of personnel well-trained, full-time-at least for a while-if anything is to be achieved in the realm of civil defence.
Has the minister any information of what preparations have been made by the various provinces for civil defence? Has he any information regarding the number of permanent or full-time employees engaged by the provincial governments in civil defence work? Has he any knowledge of how many people have been trained to date in the special courses and who could give leadership in this field?


Murdo William Martin: About 450.


Joseph William Noseworthy: With that information we would have some idea of the over-all picture of just what the provinces, the municipalities and the federal government are doing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When the minister replies I should like him to deal, in so far as he can without breaching any security provisions, with what progress has been made in providing for early warning by the armed forces to the civil defence authorities in the event of enemy attack. When the minister made his statement on May 11 he described the priority in that regard and stated that it was the duty of the military to provide the means of receiving warning through radar and other devices which have been referred to, that they would also have the duty of warning the civil defence authorities, whose duty it would be to alert the various localities which were expected to be the targets of that particular raid. It seems to me that that is one of the most important things in this whole matter. I refer to the details for receiving early warning. I should be glad if the minister could tell us about that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I think the time has now come for me to deal with a number of the questions that have been raised. May I say this-and I say this in full appreciation of the value of the discussion, which I think has been useful-if any hon. member thinks that I have taken to heart personally anything that has been said., I am sure that hon. member does not know me.
I really think this has been a most useful debate because this is an extremely important matter and it is by no means an easy one to deal with.


I know that the hon. member for Lanark would not want to misinterpret what I said when I used the words "take a calculated risk". But I feel that one in government and holding this particular post at this time must be courageously frank and not give the impression that it would be possible to provide a complete civil defence for this country. That cannot be done in any country. All we can hope to do-in the light of the appraisal of the situation as given to us by military authorities-in co-operation with other jurisdictions of government, is to build up the best and most effective civil defence organization that is possible, and to do that without in any way prejudicing the primary effort that must now occupy every free country in the free world, recognizing that if war should come it can be won only by giving first support to the armed forces of the nation. That effort necessitates that we do not provide for a needless diversion of energy or of resources. I know that everyone in this committee will agree with that statement. That is the sort of thing I had in mind when I was speaking.
If the hon. member for York South who has just spoken will permit me to say so, I think he made a good speech. I say that not because he agreed with what I said-although I suppose I am somewhat encouraged to so appraise his effort because he has spoken as he did-but because I believe that what he said is surely what we all really believe, namely, that this business of civil defence is essentially one of mutual aid.
If there is one field in which I admit without any hesitation that I am not fully satisfied by any means, it is the field of education. I believe that the municipalities, the provinces and ourselves will have to accelerate the techniques we have for bringing home to the people the important facts involved in civil defence. I say that frankly without depreciating what has already been done and without underestimating the value of plans which we have in that very connection. There are in our own services in Ottawa, and also in those of at least nine provincial governments, individuals who are devoting their full time to the job of trying to find the most effective way of bringing home to the individual citizen-the boy and the girl in the school, the teacher, the worker in the factory, all of us-those methods that can most effectively be employed in the event of the kind of disaster which could happen but which none of us wants to happen.
I must say that the speech delivered by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard had this suggestion with which I know we will

all agree, namely, that each of us has a responsibility. We are members of parliament and we can do a great deal to bring home to the people a proper appreciation of this problem, without creating panic or fear, by letting them know that it is only good common sense to develop certain techniques in this matter of civil defence.
I believe that the statement I made the other night possibly has been forgotten in the present discussion. If hon. members will do me the honour of referring to it, they will see there a statement of principles which I believe will find ready acceptance by most people in this country and by most hon. members of the House of Commons. There was a frank recognition of the fact that at the centre you cannot do this job completely, that the primary responsibility must rest at the local level and therefore the primary influence must be voluntary effort based on the principle of mutual aid.
The hon. member for Peace River made an excellent suggestion, namely that each home was the place where civil defence should begin. I think he used the words "domestic granary". That was the basis of Britain's civil defence scheme during the last war. Sir John Hodsoll told me in Washington the other day when we were discussing this matter-Sir John Hodsoll being the director of civil defence in the United Kingdom- that the people of the United- Kingdom were able to deal with air raids more successfully than were the people of Hamburg for that very reason. While some of them took to the tubes, the vast majority of the people of the United Kingdom showed defiance and used their own homes as the centre. That is an experience that I think we might well bear in mind in considering the matter of shelter, whether it be communal or private, or whatever may be the scheme devised. It is not without significance that at the present time His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom-and I use the United Kingdom as an example not because we must emulate some other country but because of their experience and because of their proximity to attack-are not at the present time engaging in any expenditure on shelters.
I believe that if we will look at our own situation in the light of the character of our country, we shall find that we have three levels of government: the federal, the provincial and the municipal. The ten provincial governments and ourselves have agreed as to what should be done. While hon. members here may criticize-and may properly do so from their point of view-what we have done, I can only say that what we are doing is the result of agreement of those in the ten
Supply-National Defence provincial governments who have jurisdictional influence over the local government in each of those ten provinces. I have given a statement of what we have done, and have told of the various committees that we have set up and that are working, such as the transportation committee, the medical committee, the welfare committee, the telecommunications committee and so on, and the responsibility for the training of instructors to carry on the work of civil defence in the community. I have told the house all about that.
I hold in my hand a report given to me by each of the ten provincial governments of our country. Each province has designated one of its ministers as the minister of civil defence. Each minister has built up an organization on the provincial level corresponding in many particulars to the organization that we have at the national level, and in turn has stimulated action in the various municipalities. As I said last evening there is not more than one city of 50,000 or over which does not have its own civil defence director. That is the first thing for a community to do. That director, paid by the municipality in every case, is the centre around which is built the local organization.
At one time in our discussions with the Red Cross and St. John Ambulance they wanted to work, particularly the Red Cross, as a national disaster organization. We took the position, with which the provinces agreed, that the Red Cross and other national organizations should act in co-ordination with the plans of the locality. As a result the Red Cross in my own city of Windsor, for example, does not operate as part of a national body but is integrated into the local scheme. That is a very important matter, for if an attack should occur it is not what may be done in any central capital that is going to count; it is what can be done in the particular municipality where the job has to be carried out. The effectiveness of that kind of mutual aid will depend upon the kind of direction the local civil defence director has been able to give in enlisting the support of the people of that community.
Those are basic considerations that so far in this debate have been overlooked. In Montreal, one of the important cities of our country, Brigadier Gauvreau, a distinguished soldier of the last war, has been appointed civil defence director, and he has done an excellent job in the short time he has been at work. I mention the city of Montreal simply to indicate that many hon. members have failed to appreciate the tremendous amount of work that is being done; and that work was begun in the first instance as a

Supply-National Defence result of the stimulation by the present civil defence co-ordinator in Canada, General Worthington. In Montreal, wardens and other civil defence personnel, working on a voluntary basis, have been and are being enlisted. The other day they had a meeting at which several thousand were in attendance; and that work is going on, along with the contribution being made by welfare organizations, medical bodies and others. The doctors themselves are now holding special clinics and preparing for the problems that may have to be met.
Then in the city of Sault Ste. Marie the other day on both sides of the border exercises were held in anticipation of a possible air raid. Thousands of individuals, including nurses, doctors, welfare workers, St. John Ambulance personnel and Red Cross members took part in those exercises. A similar exercise on a more modest scale took place not long ago in Detroit and in Windsor, where I am happy to say one of the best civil defence organizations is being developed under a director who had extensive training in the United Kingdom during the last war.
I mention these cities not because I prefer them to others but simply to indicate the work that is going on. I do not say it is perfect. I know there is a great deal yet to do. 1 will not be satisfied until this job is done and the danger is past; but on the other hand I do not want anyone to underestimate the work already carried out at the provincial and municipal levels. I have before me a report from British Columbia, for instance. I do not want to go into all the details, but there they have an organization composed of representatives of health and welfare organizations, the army, voluntary organizations, industry and all the other groups in a community upon which one would have to rely in a situation such as this. The hon. member for Lake Centre spoke of the agreements that have been made between state and state in the United States. Well, long before the United States thought of that this country had achieved and completed such agreements. Here, for instance, is a report on the nature of the agreement between Alberta and British Columbia, which also shows the extent of the preparations that have been made in British Columbia, the courses being given, the training being carried on, the schools being set up and the instructors being provided. The report deals with the activities of the civil defence director in circulating civil defence bulletins all through British Columbia in an endeavour to keep up interest in civil defence work, and so on.
[Mr. Martin.!

I could go on. I have here the report of the province of Alberta, of which I have given some indication already in reply to the hon. member for Bow River. I note here, for instance, that in connection with publicity and education Mr. Gerhart inaugurated a series of broadcasts early in January, which is still continuing and which is carried over most of the Alberta stations. They are doing everything they can to bring home to the people some of the elementary facts of this program. I want to give fair warning now that we have plans at the national level for a heavy educational program. That is likely to cost a great deal of money, and I would hope that no hon. member who today is criticizing our lack of educational effort will rise in his place next year, when I bring in a report of the expenditure through our information service in the Department of National Health and Welfare, and protest the amount we have spent in carrying on work to supplement that being done by the provinces.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As long as you keep it separate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says as long as I do something. I know I will not be able to do anything that will completely satisfy my esteemed and hon. friend. Here is the province of Saskatchewan, which has a civil defence training school. Someone may ask why Saskatchewan should worry about the possibility of air attack, since it would not be regarded as a primary target. That may be so, but it is a very important reception centre. From our experience in the flood disaster in Manitoba we know how essential it proved to be to have machinery in Saskatchewan for the reception of thousands of hospital patients, numbers of old people and others who found refuge there. The experience of those days is being used in building up a very effective civil defence organization there, as in other places,
As to the province of Ontario, as I said last evening, only last Friday I had a long discussion with the minister in charge of civil defence matters, Mr. Welsh. Every community in Ontario of major size has a civil defence director-with the exception of the city of Ottawa-and Mr. Welsh wrote me yesterday saying he had written the authorities in Ottawa asking them to emulate in that particular the example of every other community of any consequence in this province. With that single exception, every community of any significance in Ontario has its own organization. The plan in Ontario is to have the organization on a county unit basis, to have the major community in the

county serve as the centre. That direction was given by Mr. Welsh about two weeks ago, and as a result a considerable acceleration in organization has taken place already. The other day in London I was talking to Colonel Eric Harris, the civil defence director for that city. He outlined for General Worthington and myself the whole plan not only for the organization of the county but for the organization of that whole district, covering some eight or nine counties. So that while one can only give here a general picture of what is being done in each of the provinces, one can see that in the province of Ontario, too, a very considerable amount of organization is under way. The Ontario government has not yet appointed its civil defence coordinator, but Mr. Welsh has been extremely active in formulating plans for his province.
In the province of Quebec a school began operations today. There, too, the municipalities have appointed their civil defence directors, and direction is being given to them by myself and my department in conjunction with the co-operative arrangement that we have with the provinces. Similarly in the province of New Brunswick. Incidentally, we have trained eleven civil defence officials for the province of New Brunswick, and they have now returned to their province to take positions of leadership in the direction of the civil defence program. The same is true of Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia one of the significant things is the prominent part being taken by women in giving leadership in the building up of all local civil defence organizations.
I have just mentioned these provinces, and for the sake of a complete reference I would not want to leave out the province of Prince Edward Island, where a total of four civil defence officials have received training at federal expense. They are now giving leadership in various civil defence activities in that province. The province of Newfoundland has its civil defence provincial committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Curtis. Five civil defence officials who were trained in our school are assisting him in the planning of the work for the whole province. So, when one comes to make an assessment of what is being done in this field in Canada, one must see not only what is being done in Ottawa under federal direction but also what is being done under municipal and provincial direction.
The result is we are building an organization for civil defence which I feel, in the light of all the circumstances, represents if not the most complete, at any rate a commendable effort. The time to look for completion of achievement is after the danger
Supply-National Defence has passed. Before I take my seat, I should note that the hon. member for Lanark referred to stockpiling. I have already dealt with that. I have told him of our plans to stockpile medical supplies at strategic centres, for which arrangements have been made in conjunction with the Department of National Defence. As I said the other night, I agree with him about the importance of encouraging the greatest amount of first aid training. We have made special arrangements with the St. John Ambulance Corps for that purpose; that is something we must do whether we accelerate our program or not. I agree fully with him that that is a useful kind of training, and will always be of great benefit to this country.
We hope to be able, through schools, service clubs and church organizations, primarily under the direction of the St. John Ambulance, to carry on an increasing amount of first aid training all over this country. It is something that will serve us in good stead in the days of peace, in the days of twilight between peace and war, or in the days of war itself. I can assure the hon. member for Lanark there will be no relaxation of that effort. I have already explained what we are doing about defence against ABC warfare. The school we have at Connaught Ranges, which some of us are going to visit between six o'clock and adjournment tonight, is the school which is dealing with that as well as with other matters. I want to say, therefore, to the hon, member for Lanark that he can be assured that no effort in the important field of medical and welfare endeavour is going to be overlooked. If what has been done to date does not fully satisfy him, that may be because a full appreciation of what has been done has not been given. But I can assure him that the fullest contact exists with our nursing association, with the Canadian Medical Association, and all those bodies upon whom we have to depend-the men who will stimulate action, not at Ottawa nor in Toronto nor in any one of our capitals, but on the part of the health workers in the village or town concerned where the civil defence organization is being built up.
Now, we are proceeding with this as wisely and as energetically as we know how. We are not looking for commendation as to whether our achievement is worthy of praise. I am saying that no effort is being lost to develop an effective organization. If it is effective, we are not looking for praise. That will be due to the collaboration we are receiving from every one of the ten provincial governments of Canada who are in full
3416	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence concurrence with the principles I have outlined and with the point of view which I Wave taken.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister deal in
detail with the question of the warning system? Is it intended to station civil defence personnel at fighter command headquarters so that they can receive the warning at the same time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Last night I dealt with this
question in part. I stated that the warning system was by no means complete. It is the job of the Royal Canadian Air Force, through radar and through the air observer corps, to get information respecting unidentified aircraft to the air defence communication centres. At that point a civil defence liaison officer will be stationed on a twenty-four hour basis. It will be his duty to see that when the signal comes in the warning is sent down the civil defence communication line to the various target points. Once the message is transmitted to the target area, it is the job of the local civil defence authority to set up its own communication system.
Sirens are being provided. The responsibility for their installation will rest upon the municipality. I may say that we are not only using these air raid detection agencies. For instance, as the leader of the opposition will know, the province of Ontario has an excellent detection service operating under the department of forestry. That is an extensive organization, and that, along with similar units, will be used in trying to bring the warning to the municipalities. Only this afternoon General Worthington is conferring with two telecommunication officials, one representing a big communication company in this country, who is going to give this service to the government without compensation and to assist in that particular matter.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 142, for the relief of Jacqueline Yvonne Suzanne Stacker Grant-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
[Stage Direction]

On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Coldwell:: I should like to ask the
sponsor a question. Is he sure that the evidence in regard to this bill has been circulated?


Mr. Winkler:: The information I have, Mr. Chairman, is that all the evidence of all the bills before the house in committee at the present time was circulated through the mails to everybody except those who requested that they be omitted.


Major James William Coldwell: I have not been able to
find a copy of this bill. I was wondering whether the sponsor of the bill could give a little information about it. How many children are affected by this bill?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: Perhaps somebody else
would find this evidence. I have not been able to locate the first four in my stack of bills. I know I had it the last time, but I have not been able to find it at this time.


Major James William Coldwell: There is the trouble. Even the sponsor cannot locate the first four of these bills. I cannot locate Bill No. 142, but my hon. friend behind me says that he has a copy of the bill and that there are no children affected by it. Therefore probably he knows what the contents of the bill are; I do not, and neither does the sponsor of the bill.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, this bill deals with the case of a woman who is suing her husband for divorce. Apparently she has been successful so far as the Senate is concerned. The bill has now come to us for endorsation. I have been amused by the assertion in certain newspapers that we are conducting a filibuster on such bills as this. It is a question as to what is the definition of a filibuster. I intend to have no filibuster on this bill unless spending ten minutes on a bill which breaks up a home can be considered a filibuster. A filibuster may be a lot of time spent upon one bill, but I do not think that spending ten minutes on one bill can be considered as a filibuster. I intend to spend some ten minutes upon it.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Has the hon. gentleman a
point of order? I can sit down and let him expound it.


Mr. Sinnoii:: Kill a little more time.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: Which clause are we on?


The Deputy Chairman:: Clause 1.

Private Bills-Divorce


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I was saying that in regard to this particular bill there could be no filibuster upon it in ten minutes. We have spent some five hours on thirty divorce bills-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon.
member has already said that he was not participating in a filibuster. He must speak to clause 1 of the bill.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Very well.


Mr. Dickey:: Say it again; it will take up
the same time.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The point about this bill is
that it has certain things in common with other bills, Mr. Chairman. I presume I can say that. The investigator in this particular bill claims that he does not know the co-respondent. I notice that in a great many bills the co-respondent who is used as the basis, or, shall I say, as the subject, of the evidence, is not known. Now, this investigator, who is an investigator by profession, and whose business is to investigate, does not know the name of this lady upon whom the evidence is based. To me that is a remarkable thing.
I am going to suggest to you, sir, that some of these people who are employed giving evidence or, let us not say giving evidence, but becoming exhibit No. 1 in certain of these divorce cases, are simply like the investigators, professional people in the business who are paid so to do. I cannot make that assertion with any proof on this particular bill, but I am convinced of it in regard to many bills similar to this one. In other words, not only are there investigators professionally, but these women who submit themselves to this sort of thing in order that they may give evidence are, in many instances, professionals. I believe that is the reason that in these particular divorce cases the name of the particular operator-and I am using that word advisedly-does not come before the public. If the name of the operator in these bills were brought before the public, then her usefulness as an operator in that connection would be at an end, and she might have to find some other means of making a livelihood. I make that protest in connection with this bill and in other like bills.
My next point in connection with this bill, and in others like it, is that in obtaining evidence these investigators use means which to my way of thinking are not ethical. The [DOT]other night we had someone breaking down a door. That is illegal. Then we had illegal entry into a room. We had an instance where an investigator lied. He said he had come to obtain an overcoat which he had left there
the day before. May I hasten to say, in case the chairman is looking at me too severely, that in the case of this particular bill there is some such similar matter.
These investigators apparently think that it is all right to depart from the truth in any case whatever so long as they may obtain evidence. That, to my mind, is getting evidence under false pretences.
I have little more to say about this particular bill; I hope to have more to say on others. I had hoped that my hon. friend would move that these bills might stand over and allow the other private members to go on, and I would be agreeable to that, but he was blocked in his efforts the other night.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. That is
certainly not on clause 1.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Then I shall discuss these bills and other bills like it, unless some other members wish to discuss them in my stead, until we get to the end of this group of bills. I shall proceed with the discussion. I think there is nothing more to be said about this one. There are no children involved in this case, as there are, unfortunately, in many of these cases. I have never read any of this evidence before, in my five years here; but it is interesting to note that this bill is unique in one respect, in that the lady in question was careful enough to be married twice. I do not think there is any doubt as to the adequacy of the first ceremony but, although the couple were first married in the state of New York by a clergyman in that state, upon returning to Canada the lady took her husband before a judge and had the marriage solemnized a second time. Despite this fact we have the unfortunate circumstance that, although these people have been married and lived together since 1939, they have come to the end of the road, and are before parliament seeking a divorce.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 143, for the relief of Ethelbert Deniston Joseph Bartholomew-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Major James William Coldwell: This is another bill the evidence of which is not in the possession of either the sponsor or myself. I understand the chairman has not a copy either.

Private Bills-Divorce


Louis-René Beaudoin: No, I do not have a copy of the evidence.


Mr. Maclnnis:: A copy of the evidence should be with the bill. Do I understand the chairman has not a copy of the evidence with the bill?


Louis-René Beaudoin: No; the general procedure is to refer the bill to the committee of the whole. Then, according to the procedure which has been followed traditionally, the evidence is distributed to members in their offices. They may use the printed copies when they discuss these bills.


Major James William Coldwell: We find ourselves in a strange position. The sponsor has not a copy of the evidence, the chairman does not have a copy and neither have I.


Solon Earl Low: Nor I.


Major James William Coldwell: I doubt very much if any hon. members have copies of the evidence. Yet we are called upon to pass a bill dissolving a marriage, when none of us has any evidence upon which to decide whether that dissolution of marriage is justified or not. This indicates the manner in which we are dealing with these divorce bills, and it illustrates forcibly the position in which we find ourselves. I thought the evidence accompanied the bills, and that when a bill was finally passed the evidence was returned to the Senate committee,-because it is not circulated to the press, and it is not supposed to get out of the hands of members of parliament who receive copies of it.
We now have before us a bill, with neither the sponsor nor I, nor apparently anyone else in the committee, including the chairman, having a copy of the evidence. How can we come to a decision on this bill when we do not have the evidence upon which we are supposed to base that decision? I do not know what we can do about it.


Mr. Ward:: I have just sent for a whole bundle of them for my hon. friend.


Major James William Coldwell: I am very glad the hon. member for Dauphin has done that. I have some here, mind you-but 1 am glad he has sent for a bundle of them. I suggest this case should stand over until the chairman has a copy of the evidence, or until the sponsor can produce a copy of it, so that we may know what we are dealing with.
Therefore I move:
That the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
I do this so that the chairman may be able to get a copy of the bill.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Before putting the question perhaps I should outline just what

is before the committee. I would point out that the bill is before the committee. The evidence is taken in the Senate committee. That evidence is referred to the house with the bill. At that stage Mr. Speaker sends the bill with the evidence to our own committee on miscellaneous private bills. When it comes back to the committee of the whole hon. members are free to use the copies of evidence they find in their mail boxes. But, so far as the chairman is concerned, I would point out that we are not dealing with the evidence; we are dealing with sections one and two, the preamble and title of the bill.
I do not need to have the evidence, and therefore I suggest the hon. member need not express astonishment by stating that even the chairman does not have a copy of it. If we were sitting as a miscellaneous private bills committee I would say that I should have the evidence-but not here.


Major James William Coldwell: I think, Mr. Chairman, that you are quite right. I would request permission therefore to withdraw my motion.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Unlike the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, while I have not the bill I have the evidence.


Gordon Graydon: You fellows ought to get together.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I might add that if it is the wish of hon. members to have the bills and the evidence placed underneath their desks, as it is done in connection with other bills, such a suggestion could be studied and perhaps complied with. However, that request has not been made thus far. The system followed traditionally has been to have the evidence distributed in the mail boxes of hon. members.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I would suggest, with respect, that if no one has a copy of the evidence and if no one reads it, then surely the distribution of it must be a waste of public money. I understand that the distribution of this evidence costs the people of this country about $20,000. If this is an indication of the way it is used I suggest this publication and distribution is a waste of time and money.
I have the bill before me now. I notice that on the evidence there is no mark to identify the one to one correspondence as between the evidence and the bill. If we are going to do this regularly, then I suggest it

would be better to have them marked properly so that, for the convenience of hon. members, we could identify each bill with the evidence.


Mr. Weir:: Are not the names the same on both?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Yes, but there is no number.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think the hon. member will find that the name appearing in the evidence appears also in the bill.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I have nothing in particular to say about the subject matter of this bill, although I shall have a word or two to say about the next one. In this instance, however, I notice that two children are affected. I have stopped asking the sponsor any questions because he, for whom I have the greatest respect and sympathy, tells me that he accepts no responsibility in the matter.
However, I should like to know what is to be done with the two children aged fourteen and twelve? At the moment they are in custody of the father's sister in Trinidad. I suppose they are there because there is no one to look after them in Canada. It is an immigration policy in reverse. As far as I am concerned, I think that is all I want to say and section 1 can pass.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Right to marry again.
Mr. Shaw:: Reference has been made to the fact that the evidence in these cases must not be made available to the press and the public. I understand that that assertion was made.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It was not made tonight.	'


Frederick Davis Shaw: Reference was made to that by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and I understood Your Honour to nod agreement.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I am sorry but I did not hear the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar make a statement of that kind, although he may have. I might inform the hon. member for Red Deer that the practice followed by the Senate committee is not to invite the press to be present when evidence is given before the committee.


Major James William Coldwell: My understanding is that it is not circulated to the press; that the evidence is sent here and returned to the Senate. These bills are circulated to hon. members, but apparently none of them are on our files tonight. I thank the hon. member for Dauphin for sending these to me but even now they are the wrong file.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Private Bills-Divorce

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 144, for the relief of Ivy Elizabeth Whitehead Simpson-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: In this case it is noted that Senator Aseltine, chairman of the standing committee on divorce, draws certain things to our attention. The first is that the committee recommended that the parliamentary fees payable under rule 140 be remitted save for the payment of $125. Can the sponsor tell us the terms of rule 140 under which the fees in this particular case were reduced to $125?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I would suggest that the hon. member address his question to the Clerk of the Senate.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Again I discover that the sponsor of hundreds of these bills has no information with regard to the procedure followed. I think it is necessary to put that on the record, much as I respect the hon. member. Apparently the fee was reduced to $125, and I should like to ask the sponsor what is the regular fee?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: All that information was put on the record Tuesday night. I might say further that since that time I have discovered that there were two cases in which the fees were reduced to $50.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: What were the reasons why the fee in this particular case was reduced to $125?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: The only persons who could answer that would be those who sat on the case.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I suggest that the body which has information about these things should be dealing with them. In this particular case there are two grown sons involved. The marriage occurred in 1925. I am going to suggest that this fee was reduced because this unfortunate woman is earning her livelihood as a bookkeeper and apparently has no other source of income except what she earns or receives from her sons.
There are two points I should like to make. I have made them already, but I shall make them again. The first is that this is another case in which the female co-respondent is unknown to everyone. But I do not believe she is unknown to everyone. I believe she will be appearing in other cases and the same evidence will be presented to break up another home.
3420	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I do not know. Nobody knows, but I am suggesting that that is what it is. In other words, the investigator who found out everything else did not find out this name. There would appear to be people who are making their living out of this sort of thing.


An hon. Member:: What sort of thing?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I have tried to find out.


Mr. Fulford:: Why, do you want to work too?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I will just leave my hon. friend alone. I should like to draw to your attention the fact that in this particular case the investigator lied in order to get the necessary evidence, but apparently that was not considered unusual by the court in the other place. In other words, the court which is presently looking after bills of this kind is prepared to take the sworn evidence of a man who lies when he is not under oath. As far as I am concerned I am equally ready to accept the word of a man, whether he is under oath or not, if I accept it at all.
This man was asked how he got into a particular room in order to make his investigation, and he said that he had said he was the watchman and that there was a smell of smoke in the hallway. In the case we considered last week the investigator said he had come back to get his overcoat which he had left in the room. In this case he smelled smoke. Apparently he felt that where there was smoke, there might be fire. I would not believe that man either on oath or not on oath.
Those are some of the things that we as a court, and we are a legally constituted court, should consider in dealing with these cases.
I do not think ten minutes is too long to take in considering this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.
Louis-René Beaudoin: If there is no objection to any other particular bill shall I call them collectively?


Major James William Coldwell: No, one at a time.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I must insist that we take
them one at a time.



CAROL ELIZABETH CHUTE LEVESQUE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 153, for the relief of Carol Elizabeth Chute Levesque-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: This is another case where fees have been remitted. Serving in my capacity as a member of the committee which studied-I beg your pardon, I do not mean studied-which handled these bills in bulk, I have a comment or two to make about how they are handled. There is in this one again the remission of fees, to the sum of $125. I note the coincidence in the figures; they are $125 in each case. While the sponsor informs me that I can get the information elsewhere, either he has not the information himself or does not care to give it to me at this time. But both fees are $125. irtiere must be some reason for that.


Matthew MacLean: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he a member of this miscellaneous private bills committee, and has he asked any questions about these bills when they were before the committee?


An hon. Member:: Certainly not; not one.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: We are talking about clause 1 of this bill.


Mr. Ferrie:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Does my hon. friend wish to enter this discussion?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: I wish to explain that every time this is done-and I have been in the divorce committee in the Senate-it is purely and simply an act of mercy. The people cannot afford to pay the full fee, and the Senate has the right to cut the fee.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: What is the point of order?


An hon. Member:: None.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is there a ruling on the point of order, Mr. Chairman?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Oh, sit down.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member must realize that the chairman cannot decide a point of order unless he has heard one.
I have not heard any, and there is no reason for me to decide anything. This point is not a point of order. Therefore there is no ruling to be made.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: 1 am delighted at the intervention of my hon. friend. I should like him to know about these matters.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Why does the hon. member not go to the divorce committee and learn something?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: There are twin children in this case and they are in the custody of the

mother. I would suggest that the remission of the fee to the amount of $125 was probably useful and justified in her particular case. It is a sad thing to think that these children who were only born in 1950, already find themselves the heirs to a broken home and completely unsupported by their father.
In connection with this bill, I think we should have some way by which these children could be cared for. We should have some court which has some jurisdiction over the children. How is this woman going to get support for these children? Is she going to start action in another court? Must she go to law again and pay the fees of lawyers, to get a decision whether or not she has legal custody of her children? All that we know now is that, if we pass this bill tonight and if it reaches the stage of third reading, the marriage has been dissolved. Let me point out once more-and I think this will be the final time tonight because I think the other hon. gentlemen who are sponsoring bills should have an opportunity to sponsor them -that in this particular case the woman who formed the subject of the evidence was apparently unknown to anybody in the court which was held in the other place.


William Gilbert Weir: I wish to rise on a question of privilege at this time, in particular with respect to the hon. gentleman who is chairman of the miscellaneous private bills committee and whose name happens to appear as the sponsor of most of these bills. The insinuation has been made here time and time again that he either has not the information asked for or is unwilling to give it. To me that implication is wholly unfair to the hon. gentleman who is sponsoring these bills. The rules do not require him to take responsibility for these bills. All he is required to do is to be assured that they are in order and in the proper state to be presented to this house. When they are referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills- and the hon. member for Saskatoon is a member of that committee-all the evidence from those who are interested can be given and reviewed.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: They can call evidence in the committee.


William Gilbert Weir: Yes, they can call evidence in the committee. All I want to say is this, and it is not in defence of divorces coming before this chamber. That is not the question at all, so far as the remarks I am about to make are concerned. It does not interfere with it in one way or the other. But this is the method that has been followed. Those who are
Private Bills-Divorce
interested in having divorce bills handled must have someone sponsor them in the house.
I take a measure of responsibility for the name of the chairman of the private bills committee being put down as sponsor of these bills. He can decline and refuse to sponsor them. My name happens to be attached to a few of these bills, and I put it there as a matter of convenience to the officers and staff of the house, as well as to those who may be interested in dealing with these divorce bills before the committee. It is largely a matter of convenience.
The other course to follow is to let whoever is dealing with the bills run all around the House of Commons and pick out some members, here and there and all over, who will sponsor these bills. From what has been going on, I think that is likely what will happen in the future. I am not so sure that I will sponsor any more divorce bills or sign my name to them in order to assure the committee that they are in order. It just so happens that it is convenient for the staff and for those who are dealing with these matters to know where they can go and get the proper direction with regard to having these bills handled. That is the reason that the name of the hon. member for Lisgar happens to be put down as the sponsor of most of these bills.
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to this committee, that it is wholly unfair to have the insinuation made that he has not the information with respect to these things or that he is unwilling to give it. It is not necessary for him to have it when it is available to the committee, when every one of these bills is before it.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, may I say immediately that I do not think anyone wishes to reflect on the hon. member for Lisgar.


William Gilbert Weir: The record speaks for itself.


Major James William Coldwell: We understand precisely the position that he is in. But in asking these questions we are bringing before parliament and the public the fact that these bills are dealt with in a manner which is-or should be, if it is not-unsatisfactory to the House of Commons and to this parliament. That is the point. May I say to my friend the hon. member for Lisgar that I realize it is utterly impossible for him to be able to give information to this committee when-


George James McIlraith: It is no part of his duty to do so.
3422	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce


Major James William Coldwell: -on this order paper today there are perhaps two hundred of these bills ahead of this committee at the present time. Consequently what is being done is to try to illustrate how ridiculous this procedure is, so that we may banish these cases from this chamber and send them to a court of law where they properly belong.


George James McIlraith: There appears to be an illustration being sought to be made to the public of this country about how wrong the procedure is. Like other hon. members, I do not like the idea of having to deal with these bills in the House of Commons; but it is quite wrong for a member of the miscellaneous private bills committee to come into the House of Commons and ask another member for information about a bill that was before that committee, when the member could have had witnesses brought before the miscellaneous private bills committee and could have obtained all the information there.


Mr. Argue:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the hon. gentleman is in order in discussing the question of divorce procedure when he should be discussing the clause of a specific bill.


George James McIlraith: If I may continue my remarks, Mr. Chairman, on the point of order which was raised affecting the privilege of an hon. member, I am merely basing my '-emarks on some previously made. The point that was being illustrated was that the chairman of the miscellaneous private bills committee did not have all the information about the details of these divorces readily available in order to answer another hon. member who himself was a member of the miscellaneous private bills committee.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not a member of that committee.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for
Saskatoon is a member, and all the information he has asked for tonight and other nights ought properly to have been obtained by him in the miscellaneous private bills committee. If he was not satisfied with the information obtained by the committee of the other house he should have had the witnesses summoned before the miscellaneous private bills committee where they could have been examined in the ordinary way. I think it only fair to hon. members that this point of law should be made clear.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I believe the discussion on the question of privilege has been sufficiently extensive. The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa indicated that in his opinion it might be unfair for hon. members to say
'Mr. Mcllrrith.]

that the sponsor of these bills does not have the information requested by members of this committee, when he is chairman of the committee on miscellaneous private bills where his duties consist of examining the bills to see whether they are in accordance with the rules. The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar has explained that whatever is said here is no reflection upon the hon. member for Lisgar. Similar declarations have been made during previous studies of these bills; the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre have stated that whatever was being said about these bills was no reflection on the hon. member for Lisgar, so I think these statements should satisfy the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa on that score.
As to the suggestion of the hon. member for Ottawa West that an hon. gentleman who was a member of a standing committee should not ask questions in this committee of the whole when he could have obtained the information in the standing committee, I think that is a matter an hon. member must analyse and assess for himself. This is the committee of the whole. If an hon. member wants to ask questions here he has the right to do so, whether or not he could have obtained the information anywhere else. If he feels that he should ask his questions here he is perfectly in order in doing so. I believe that should dispose of the point, and we should resume our discussion of section 1 of this bill.


Donald MacInnis: I believe there is another question in connection with the point of privilege that should be explained. When a member of this house becomes the sponsor of any bill other than a divorce bill, hon. members have a perfect right to expect him to know something about the bill. If that is true of other bills it should be true of divorce bills. I have not asked the hon. member for Lisgar any questions; I am not going to ask him any questions, but if anything were needed to show the ridiculous way in which we handle this situation it is that one man should sponsor two or three hundred of these divorce bills, on which any member of this house, under the rules of procedure, is entitled to ask questions.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: On a question of privilege,
Mr. Chairman, I must say that I feel no discomfort in this matter, except physically. My understanding is that these are bills which have been passed by the Senate committee, and therefore I am prepared to sponsor them in this house as a matter of form. I am not expected, I take it, to read all the evidence; I merely have to satisfy myself that they have been passed in the other place, and that is good enough for me.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 161, tor the relief of Bella Rashkin Deutsch-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Major James William Coldwell: I am not going to delay the committee very long, but if hon. gentlemen have the evidence in these cases before them they will see that precisely the same investigators produced the evidence for Bill No. 161 and Bill No. 162, as they have on a very large proportion of these bills; and they will notice that in almost every instance the evidence is somewhat similar. It is true that in these two bills the evidence of the investigators is slightly different, but they manage to get into an apartment or into an hotel. In one case they put a cigarette box against the door and left it there until early morning when they went back to see if it was still there. Posing as firemen or something of the sort they got into the room. Here the witness was asked:
Q. What is your name? A. Harry Maxham.
Q. What is your age? A. 36.
Q. Where do you live? A. Montreal, Quebec.
Q. What is your occupation? A. Private investigator.
Then he either picks up or calls in his assistant, Mr. Golden in every case, and we have the same sort of evidence:
I put a cigarette box against the door and I decided to see what would happen.
I drew attention to these two investigators a week or so ago when almost identical evidence was given as to the manner in which they forced their way into hotel rooms and so on. It seems to me that if some of these cases were thoroughly investigated a few people who make their living in this way might be in a court of law for perjury. I do not think there is any question but that this is the way in which some investigators make their living. I am not going to delay these two bills further; I just wanted to point out once more the sort of evidence given by these professional investigators. As my hon. friend says the name of the co-respondent is never given, and sometimes I wonder if the things that are described ever occurred. I have been told that in at least one instance nothing of the sort did happen. I cannot prove that because my informant would not allow me to give the source of my information, but I was told so on very good authority. The whole procedure is so sloppy here that I think applications for divorce should go to a 80709-218
Private Bills-Divorce
court of law, where perjury might be discovered occasionally and the people committing it might be properly punished.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 171, for the relief of Philip Rosen-Mr. Winkler -Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I did not rise to reply to the
hon. member for Ottawa West, but I would like to say that I am a member of the miscellaneous private bills committee.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the hon.
member speaking to a question of privilege? If not, he must speak to section one. That matter has been settled.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: This bill is for the relief of
Philip Rosen. I want to point out that this bill was brought up before the miscellaneous bills committee, and was thoroughly studied with counsel on each side. We made up our minds in regard to it. This is one bill, sir, in which I would say there was some investigation made, and therefore it was not passed blindfold.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: On a question of privilege,
Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that this came before the private bills committee because it was appealed. None of the others were appealed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 187, for the relief of Donald George Story-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall I report the
bill?


Alphonse Fournier: On division.
Bill reported.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Evelyn Elizabeth Hulbig Wilks.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Margaret Cameron Williams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Rose Pap Bernstein.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	150,	for	the relief	of Albert
William Stone.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	151,	for	the relief	of Yvette
Barnaby Shang.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Minnie Engle Fitleberg.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Lillian Cohen Turner.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Georgina Catherine Christie Savage.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Irene Bour-geau Morin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Anne Cohen Bialer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Josephine Gibson Clark Mayou.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Henry John Lawrence.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Grace Shirley Kraminsky Levy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Gladys Eliza Cartwright Jones.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Grace Helen Potts Worall.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Hortense Marie Therese Loiese Neveu.-Mr. Winkler. *
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Eileen Florence Alma Hinton Johnson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Ritchie Leslie McEwen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Catherine Marie Littlefield Stirling.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Marie Rose Vachon Orr.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Viola Rupert Moran.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Leah Berniker Berger.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Betty Suffrin Sher.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Muriel Violet Marcella Barkas Sauve.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Lois Christine Flemming Foster.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Joseph Napoleon Romeo Moisan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Catherine Veronica Joynt Bragdon.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Sarah Alice Thompson Getzler.-Mr. Winkler.
- Bill No. 185, for the relief of Grace Anderson Hallam.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Edna May Walker Green.

Mr. Winkler.
Howard Waldemar Winkler: the third reading of Bills Nos. 142,143,144,145,146,149,

150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186 and 187.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Cruickshank:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bills read the third time and passed on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robinson for the second reading of Bill No. 118, to incorporate Border Pipeline Corporation, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Herridge.
Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment that has been moved on this bill. The amendment seeks to have this pipe line follow an all-Canadian route. I am not opposed to the company.
I am not opposed to the personnel of the company. I do not know the officers concerned. I am concerned, however, about this pipe line bill not including a section to the effect that the pipe line will be built through Canadian territory. So far as I can see, and I am satisfied now after investigating the point, there is no physical reason why the pipe line could not be built through Canadian territory much cheaper than through United States territory. There is ample evidence to prove that point. Today I believe the issue is merely financial interests versus Canadian interests. By "Canadian interests" I mean the general welfare of the Canadian people which is involved in getting this pipe line to serve our country first.
Unfortunately this bill will be passed in spite of all the arguments that we can put up against it, because the government majority will put it through. This bill, like all the bills concerned with taking gas to the coast, has met with the same objections from the provincial government of British Columbia, city councils, boards of trade, chambers of commerce, and all the bodies within that province who are opposed to the passing of this bill without the particular clause I mentioned. I believe the government should now assume its right to direct the flow of our natural resources along lines that will give Canadians as a whole the greatest benefit.
Sending our gas and oil to the United States, as we are proposing to do under this bill, does not indicate a sound policy on the part of the government, if the government is

going to try to build Canada first. We can easily understand why the United States wants our gas and oil. They have exploited their own to the full, and the resources in California are now petering out, as is well known to everyone. According to a statement made by the American gas association, the natural gas industry in the United States is finding that new discoveries are not keeping pace with production. The ratio of reserves to production in the United States, according to the American gas association, has dropped from 32-49 in 1949 to 26-17 in 1950. They are taking steps to conserve the remaining supply. In the meantime, their policy obviously is to import all they can from Canada, and thereby deplete our resources as well as their own. Unfortunately, Canada has not a sound national policy for the conservation of our gas and oil. At least, I do not feel that we have. We may well find our own supplies exhausted in a very few years' time.
I believe that the conservation of resources is a moral obligation upon all members of parliament, and on the government. We must assume that obligation not only for the protection of our generation but in the interests of generations of Canadians who will occupy this land when we are gone. I am not opposed to any surplus gas being sold to the United States. I think they are entitled to it, but only when it is surplus and after it has supplied Canadian needs.
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being nine o'clock, the hour reserved for private and public bills has been exhausted, and the house will resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence forces-
245. To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services and defence research and development, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $3,831,270,000 including authority notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $1,924,170,835 and commitments against future years of $1,907,099,165 against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1951-52 will not exceed $1,595,050,000 of which $183,050,000 will be provided from section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, as supplemented by item 246, $1,412,000,000.
80709-218^
Supply-National Defence


Louis-René Beaudoin: We are considering item 245, the sub-item civil salaries and wages, civil defence.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I had a few specific
questions that I wished to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Mention was made on numerous occasions today and last night about hose couplings. The minister told us that something in the neighbourhood of $977,500 is going to be spent on fire-fighting equipment, chiefly these hose couplings. The thing we have not found out, and which I should like to know, is whether any decision has been made on a standardized coupling.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the decision, of course, does not rest with us. There are a number of different plans, and of course the objective is to bring them all into a common system. The fire chiefs have had a meeting, both on the national and on the provincial level, discussing this very matter. They have not finalized their decisions.
The business of standardizing hose couplings of course is not only a civil defence matter, but of permanent all-time value, as my hon. friend will appreciate. However, the government has thought it desirable that we should endeavour not to wait until there is full national accord. It was for that reason that we did make a tentative arrangement, subject to plans being submitted and approved by the province of Ontario, in the discussion that I referred to that was held with Colonel Welsh last week; and he has taken steps to bring about such uniformity and standardization in the province of Ontario. It is hoped that as a result of that action uniformity may be stimulated elsewhere.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If I understood the minister correctly, they are proceeding on a provincial basis, in the first place as far as Ontario is concerned, in the hope that the standardized coupling adapted for use throughout Ontario will then be adopted throughout the rest of Canada. Do I understand by that that the only province in which any money has been advanced to aid in the standardization of these couplings is Ontario, and that it will be the only one in which they have agreed on some standard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. The arrangement that we have made with the province is that we would pay one-third toward the cost of these hose couplings. The offer applies of course to all provinces.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The point I am getting at is that apparently no agreement has yet been made that this standardized coupling be used. So far, the only thing that is being done in

Supply-National Defence a practical way is this grant to Ontario to standardize its couplings. That is correct, is it?


Murdo William Martin: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What steps is the minister taking in his position as being in charge of civil defence for the dominion to get the other provinces to agree to take this same standard coupling? In the event that they do not take it, what is to be the result? It would seem to me that this is a matter of such importance that the dominion government should ensure by some means or other that general agreement is reached on the part of all the provinces before any of the money is put out. I do not know, but ^ it would seem to me that would be the wise course.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend may be certain that everything that we can do to get uniformity will be done, but we cannot force municipalities or provinces to do anything contrary to their will. The most effective means, of course, is the one of persuasion, and that is what we are engaged in. The practice I have followed in the case of Ontario is being followed with every other province. As a matter of fact, I had some discussion today with another government in connection with the same matter.


Mr. Gillis:: I want to ask the minister a Question. From what he said a moment ago I assumed that the intention of the department is complete national standardization. Is that correct?


Murdo William Martin: Standardization of hose
couplings.


Clarence Gillis: Any attempt to do that is impracticable, is it not? For example, there are many different types and sizes of hydrants, and the hose coupling that you may perfect for the province of Ontario may not at the hydrant in any of the other provinces. Is it not the logical thing to do to make a a survey of a province, determine the type of hydrant used in that province and perfect the coupling that can be used and standardized as between municipalities in that province?


Murdo William Martin: That is what is being
attempted.


Clarence Gillis: I do not think that complete
uniformity or standardization in this country on a national basis is possible. I do not see where there is any possibility of using the equipment, or the fire-fighting machinery, from the province of Ontario in the province of British Columbia or in the province of Nova Scotia. I think the thing to do-and

perhaps the minister's officials are doing it-is to get a complete provincial survey of the type of hydrant and the size of hydrant and manufacture for that province the type of equipment that is adapted to the hydrants in that province, because you need standardization as between one municipality and the other.
I do not see anything happening in any province where it might be necessary to move in fire-fighting equipment from another province. Complete standardization was possible in Britain because they had a unified set-up to start with. Because of the distances that exist in this country the local unit is the place to start the survey on a provincial scale.
Over a year ago I listened to the fire marshal of Nova Scotia address a banquet, and at that time I was led to believe that there was almost complete uniformity and stardardization in that province. Rather than taking it on a national scale and deciding that Ontario is going to be the focal point, perfecting equipment that might suit in this province and then saying that you must get uniformity in the sixty or seventy different types of hydrants throughout the country, a start should be made in one province. After all, the hydrant is the key in the thing.
I wanted to say that because I got the impression from the minister that they were going to take Ontario as an example, and from the ivory tower in Ottawa say to the provinces that they have to re-equip to suit the type of coupling that we are going to have in this province. I just thought I would leave these thoughts with the minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We do not disagree on that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not know too much about this matter of hose couplings, but my understanding is that you can get an adapter which you can use on any hydrant.


Heber Harold Hatfield: You cannot do that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hose can be put on by means of that adapter. Whether that is correct, I am not sure, but that is my understanding.
One of the difficulties in this thing of not having the same equipment throughout the whole of the dominion is that every province except Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island abuts onto some other province and you are very likely to have help going from one to the other.
Another matter that I wish to ask about is the item that was mentioned, namely, radiation detection instruments, for which $962,000 is to be spent this year, with an additional

$50,000 being ordered to be paid for next year. Can the minister tell us what these radiation detection instruments are, and whether it is intended by means of this vote, or subsequent votes of this kind, to equip all of the municipalities with these instruments?


Murdo William Martin: To answer the latter part of my hon. friend's question, we will naturally provide the equipment in those areas where we believe, in the light of the assessment that is made, there is a prior necessity, and we will *proceed on that basis. Obviously, it would be impossible, when you have not got unlimited quantities, to try and supply them to all communities. However, we are saying that in these places where we believe the need in terms of priority is greatest we will supply them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister did not say what sort of detection equipment this was. It was also part of my question. In view of what the minister has said I should like to ask another question. Is the dominion government paying the entire cost of this detection equipment, or is it on a one-third basis, the same as the hose couplings?


Murdo William Martin: The present agreement is that we shall supply these.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What kind of equipment is it?


Murdo William Martin: What does my hon. friend mean by the question? There are many kinds of equipment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Are these geiger counters.


Murdo William Martin: These are first of all to try to ascertain the existence of radioactivity. Also there are supplementary auxiliary units of use in the medical field, which, where there is radioactivity, are applied to the human body, and yield positive, negative, minor or major results.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The next item comprises a
series of things, and refers to sirens, to the extent of $252,000. Is the dominion government supplying sirens to all municipalities, or is this on a one-third basis?


Murdo William Martin: As I said in my statement in
chief, the sirens are being provided in communities of 20,000 and over in Canada, or to communities of lesser population within a target area.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And the dominion is paying the full cost, I presume?


Murdo William Martin: Yes, that is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then there is mention of
training equipment, and mention of pamphlets. In addition to pamphlets, what does
Supply-National Defence "training equipment" include? The minister mentioned stretchers which is a separate item. What are the kinds of training equipment, apart from stretchers and other things, which are specifically required?


Murdo William Martin: Rescue sets. Then, of course, pamphlets have a primary purpose of serving in an educational program. However, there will be pamphlets not intended merely for public education, but to help in connection with specific things such as a greater measure of first-aid training, and to encourage some phases of home nursing. The other type of pamphlet will be designed to bring home to the general public the kinds of protections which, in the light of experience in heavily bombed-out areas such as those in the United Kingdom, and in areas such as Nagasaki and Hiroshima, are thought to be the protective measures which should be taken.
Some of that information is now out in various ways. Some comes through in the form of films, some in the form of radio talks and dramatizations. It is done most effectively through films. As I said last night, we have arranged for the use of films produced in the United States, and we hope also to be able to get two films from Great Britain. It may be necessary to make some readaptations for our own local use.
Then the stretchers about which I spoke last night are the stretchers we are providing for the school in Ottawa, the school in Saskatchewan, in Montreal, and so on.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Possibly the minister did
not understand my question. I asked what this training equipment is, apart from the pamphlets, the stretchers and the films which are mentioned specifically.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, I referred to rescue
equipment, or rescue sets. We are having a rescue set built at our training school at Connaught Ranges which a number of us visited this evening.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The next item refers to
communications equipment, to a value of $20,000. Who will be supplied with that equipment, and to what extent is it being supplied by the dominion government? This is one of the most important things, so far as civic defence is concerned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are using the communications division of the Department of Transport particularly, and also working closely with the Department of National Defence. This afternoon we spent several hours examining two alternative plans for the use of the communications equipment submitted by a number of the large communications
3428	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence companies in the country. The terms of that use have not been established, but the discussions carried on today will continue next week. That is still by no means perfected, but it is certainly in the stage of receiving attention.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister has not yet
said what the $20,000 is for. That was my specific question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall have to send for the
details, and give them later.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister has not got it. Then, I should like to bring up one other point. I understand one of the chief means of communication in each locality which will be depended upon in the matter of civil defence is through so-called hams. These are the people who own and who have as their hobby radio sending and receiving stations. In Calgary there are twenty-two or twenty-three hams who have their receiving sets installed in automobiles, or have them in a state where they can be installed.
If all other forms of communication fail, which might very easily happen in Calgary and the surrounding neighbourhood, we have this form of communication. However, they are seriously handicapped in the matter of training because they have not yet been allotted wavelengths. They have been waiting for wavelengths for some considerable time, and until those wavelengths are allotted they cannot carry on training in the way they would wish. This is a matter of considerable annoyance to them, apart altogether from the fact that it makes it difficult for them to train.
They have been asked specifically to take part in the civil defence scheme, but they have not been given the wavelengths which are required. Does the minister know anything about this matter? If he does not, I would ask him to look into it specifically and immediately, and to have it ironed out so that these people who are located not only in Calgary but throughout the country can go ahead and carry on their training in a reasonable manner.


Paul Joseph James Martin: While, personally, I cannot give very much help in the matter, I can say that the telecommunications committee has this as well as other matters under study.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does the minister know why these wavelengths have been held up? From knowledge gained in the army and from other sources I know that. even in peacetime in Canada there are a large number of these shortwave lengths. There should be no difficulty at all in allotting wavelengths to


these hams. There must be red tape somewhere or other that is holding it up.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member may be sure that I will do everything I can to remove red tape.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Referring to the early warning system, the minister said before six o'clock that national defence military personnel would receive the first warning of the approach of enemy aircraft, that they would send that information to civil defence *centres which, in turn, would be responsible for sending it from the centres to the various municipalities and other civil defence subcentres so that the whole civil defence scheme might be alerted.
Is it anticipated that there will be a special civil defence communications network to receive from the Department of National Defence military personnel the first warning which the minister said would go to the civil centres? Is that to be a special network, or does it rely upon existing civilian or private communications systems, and then from there on down to what might be called the sub-centres or the civil headquarters in the various municipalities? How does word get down? Is it by private communications systems or is there a special communications system being set up?


Paul Joseph James Martin: From the time the warning is given to the defence communication centre, where there will be civil defence personnel in 24-hour attendance, consideration is now being given to separate schemes that will provide for a special communications system.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not sure whether I understood the first statement made by the minister, but I gather that the first warning would be received at a purely military centre. I asked the minister earlier whether there would be civil defence officers in attendance at, for instance, the various fighter commands or at the military centres. I understood him to say that that would not be the case but that through such installations as the fighter commands the warning would go to the civil defence centre and from there down through the civil defence network.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The warning would go to the defence communications centre at which there would be in attendance a representative of the civil defence unit on a 24-hour basis. We are now giving consideration to two separate schemes for a special communications set-up.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When the minister refers to the defence centre do I understand he is referring to a military centre?


Murdo William Martin: A centre under the direction of the armed forces, air force or otherwise.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There will be civil defence personnel at the military centres?


Murdo William Martin: That is correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister says that further consideration is being given to two alternative schemes, one relying on the existing civilian set-up.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend will understand why I do not want to give too many details, but I shall be glad to discuss this with him or any other hon. member.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is this one of the things to be studied by the committee on communications to which reference was made?


Murdo William Martin: That, and the general civilian defence committee in Ottawa.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Has consideration been
given to using the facilities of the independent radio stations? I understand that some of our Canadian stations have been called into consultation with their United States neighbours, and up until a week or so ago I had not heard of their being called in by our own government.


Murdo William Martin: That must be my fault. We have had excellent co-operation from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the private stations, representatives of whom are serving on a panel to deal with that very thing.


George Harris Hees: In answering the question asked by the hon. member for Lanark I do not think the minister gave the plans for making sure that water sources do not become contaminated.


Murdo William Martin: That is right; I did not, and I should have. That is an extremely important thing. The industrial engineering division of the Department of National Health and Welfare is I suppose one of the best agencies in the country for this purpose because of its experience in water purification. This is a problem of the greatest concern. I do not think it is necessary to explain why I am so reluctant to say anything that might be regarded as indiscreet, but my hon. friend can understand that the continuation of water supply and the purification of water for our cities is an extremely important matter and is one that is receiving our attention.


George Harris Hees: The minister outlined steps that had been taken at Montreal where the people had participated in a drill, and he outlined other practical steps they had taken.


Murdo William Martin: It was not a drill in Montreal. I simply referred to Montreal as being one
Supply-National Defence community which had a great scheme under the civil defence co-ordinator for getting together a voluntary civil defence organization in that city. I referred to a large meeting which had been attended by several thousand people and cited it as an example of the activities that were being carried on in many municipalities, altogether apart from anything we do here. In appraising what is being done in the civil defence field in Canada assessment should not be confined only to what is being done here at the centre.


George Harris Hees: Are similar steps being taken
in Toronto? I am particularly interested in my own city because I think it will be one certain target of enemy air attack. I am afraid I do not know much about what plans are being carried out in Toronto and I would appreciate if the minister would let me know what is being done.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Air Vice Marshal Lawrence
has been appointed as civil defence co-ordinator and assumed his duties within the last ten weeks. He has before him the guide on organization which was prepared by our civil defence co-ordinator's staff, based pretty well upon the United Kingdom and United States experience and which is being used in most Canadian communities. I understand that Air Vice Marshal Lawrence and those associated with him in Toronto are proceeding along these lines.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just so that I may understand the system which the minister has outlined in very general terms, is this the way the early warning system will work out? Will a centre such as the north-west air command, where presumably warning would be received because they have the type of planes that would be used, have a civil defence officer in attendance who would sit in and watch the chart, be alerted and then have the responsibility of sending a warning down to the civilian defence centres? Is that the system?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is it. I have not gone
into details about regionalization and things of that sort, but I shall be glad to discuss these with any hon. member. I do not think I should go beyond that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the sort of general
approach that I wanted to establish.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let us offer practical suggestions. I live in a large house at Riviere du Loup, quite close to the river. If the minister would fix up the cellar of this house there would be shelter accommodation for 100 people. If an excavation was made 50 feet under the house at least 1,000 people could be accommodated. As the benefit that
3430	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence I iwould receive would be no more than would be received by anyone else it would not be necessary to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You could put all your
poll captains in there.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wonder if they would take
up much room.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the hon. member anticipate being attacked personally?


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend was a
generalissimo of the enemy I know I would be the first one to receive a bomb. I make this offer to the minister and I am sure he will consider it seriously because it is a practical suggestion of how 100 people can be taken care of, in one instance, and 1,000 in the other.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Outside my own mother's
roof, I do not know of any other roof I would want to spend time under than that of my hon. friend.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister would be safe
there.


Mr. Green:: Earlier in the week a press
dispatch indicated that there was some thought of using the Pacific Coast Militia Rangers for civil defence duties. I do not know whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare would know anything about that or whether it comes entirely under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence. But this dispatch stated that there would be a reorganization of that group which contained about 16,000 men during the last war, and also that they would be doing civil defence work. Can either of the ministers tell me whether or not that dispatch is correct, and just what plans have been made; also whether any steps have been taken to reconstitute the civilian observer corps?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps that is a question which should be addressed to the Minister of National Defence. Would the hon. member mind waiting until we have completed the civil defence discussion? While it has a civil defence aspect, it really goes much beyond that. Perhaps he would care to wait and deal with it later, so that we could deal with the civil defence matter first.


Howard Charles Green: The dispatch says that the duties they are to undertake are civil defence duties. Presumably, therefore, they would come under the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I said, they have a civil defence aspect. But undoubtedly, as I said this afternoon, there is the other aspect. For instance, we have made arrangements to


use the detection service of the Ontario department of forestry. They have a vast army-perhaps I should not say it is a vast army-but very efficient operation groups of forest fire observers, as the leader of the opposition knows much better than I do, one that serves in outlying posts and in all forest areas. We will be using them. But I thought that my hon. friend was taking the matter from another angle; and I thought from that other angle, in so far as it applied to the Department of National Defence, he might care to wait until we dealt with the purely national defence items.


Howard Charles Green: If this group are to be used, there would have to be a reorganization. It is not like using a body that is already functioning.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am aware of that.


Howard Charles Green: Can the Minister of National Defence say whether they are taking steps to reorganize them, or under which department would that reorganization come?


Mr. Claxton:: The Pacific Coast Rangers which did an extremely useful job during the war were reorganized in 1947 as the Canadian Rangers. Now they have companies operating from end to end of Canada. Their role is primarily to supplement that of the active and1 reserve forces of Canada, but they have civil defence roles as well. So far, there are twenty-one companies organized and they form a component of the Canadian army reserve. They are being organized just as rapidly as we can organize them in every part where there is no ordinary reserve army unit. Their jobs are to provide guides to organized troops within their own area; coast watching; assistance to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and provincial police in the discovery, reporting and apprehension of enemy agents or saboteurs; the reporting of other suspicious activities; immediate local defence against sabotage by small enemy detachments or saboteurs and to assist and augment civilian protective arrangements against saboteurs, within the area in which the organization is authorized to operate; reporting, locating and rescue work, including first aid treatment in connection with aircraft in distress.
These Canadian Rangers are organized on much the same basis as the Pacific Coast Rangers. I remember that I took part at the inauguration of this plan in 1947. General Worthington, who is the co-ordinator of civil defence, is the honorary colonel commandant of the corps of Canadian Rangers, and that organization is proceeding.


Howard Charles Green: I am glad to hear that. They certainly did splendid work during the last war. Apparently they come under the Department of National Defence. How many have been enlisted?


Brooke Claxton: The present establishment is set at 5,000. I have not that information as to the exact number enlisted. As I say, they are organized in twenty-one companies; and from a map I have seen in the northwestern command, they cover fairly well the whole area of the Northwest Territories, the Arctic, the coast of British Columbia, and are now extending over the Hudson bay area and the north Atlantic coast.


Howard Charles Green: What about the Canadian air observer corps? Is that a separate corps?


Brooke Claxton: It is under organization now under the Royal Canadian Air Force. There is not anything yet in addition to the organization plan. I do not want to minimize it because we want to get everyone in it that we can; but, on the other hand, its utility with regard to aircraft that may be flying at 20,000 feet or more is limited. Nevertheless, its utility in connection with landings is very important.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am sure the minister will pardon me, but I think he made a slip of the tongue when he said that these Canadian Rangers were being organized in every part of Canada. Surely they are being organized only in those northern areas where there are no militia units.


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: The minister's first statement was "in every part of Canada", which would give the impression that they were being organized in the settled parts of Canada.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member is quite right. I think the record will indicate that I said it was being organized where there are no organized reserve army units. The hon. member is quite right.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Chairman, I was not particularly happy with the answer the minister gave me this afternoon to my question on civil defence in Newfoundland, and I should like to refer to it again if he would not mind. From what I could gather, either the information was such that the pipe line between himself and the civil defence authorities has a poor coupling or else the pressure is such that the information does not get through to him. It certainly does not get past him because it is not made public to the province. As I believe the minister knows, the situation is this. Some time in the early part of the 80709-219
Supply-National Defence year, an extremely public-spirited gentleman was appointed director of civil defence. He is fully aware of that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Curtis, was it not?


Gordon Francis Higgins: No; Mr. F. M. O'Leary. He came to Ottawa and attended meetings up here. Following that, he went home and shortly afterwards resigned. In his explanation he said that apparently the authorities at home were not taking the matter of civil defence seriously and were not prepared to co-operate with him. Since that time, as far as the public is concerned, nothing has happened. Today the minister said that under Mr. Curtis, the attorney general, there is a committee of five working. They may be working, but so far as the public or the province is concerned no plans have been outlined and nothing has been done. I should like the minister to tell me if he knows something that we have not been able to find out yet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot add anything to what I said this afternoon. The civil defence minister, Hon. L. R. Curtis, I am sure is a gentleman of great perspicacity and one who is greatly concerned about this matter, as I am sure my hon. friend is. I have no doubt but that he will pursue this with the same diligence with which it is being pursued in all provinces.


Gordon Francis Higgins: He must be hiding his light under a bushel.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Ministers sometimes do that.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think this debate which has now lasted for several hours has brought home to the committee the seriousness with which hon. members on all sides view this very important subject of civil defence. The minister himself stressed its importance. He has emphasized various aspects, including the need for co-operation at the various levels of government in the plans that are now beginning to be worked out; the need for the support of everyone throughout the land in order to make these plans effective, and so on. The minister has pointed out that it is not the amount of money allocated to this branch of defence that is the prime factor; yet as he went on he discussed the need of equipment, the need to develop communications services, and the need for greater personnel. So I think it will be obvious to everyone that before this plan can go into effect much larger sums of money will be required in order to make it really effective. I think we can assure the minister from this side of the house that we realize the importance of this work, and that if cooperation is required it will be forthcoming to the fullest possible extent.

Supply-National Defence


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you.


George Randolph Pearkes: We shall do everything we can. I come back for a moment to a point I made earlier and upon which the minister touched. It is contained in this excellent pamphlet the minister has issued, in which it says that the effectiveness of the civil defence system will depend in the first instance upon an adequate warning system. We realize that. The minister has told us how in the course of the last twenty-four hours steps have been taken to obtain the co-operation of the communications companies of this country. Obviously they are working toward these ends. Perhaps the minister should not be as emphatic as he was last night in pointing out what he thought were certain inaccuracies in what I had said, particularly when I mentioned that an adequate warning system did not exist at the moment.
I have just one other comment to make. In this pamphlet considerable stress is laid upon providing shock-resisting features, fire prevention requirements, basements suitable for shelters and so on in any construction work being carried out. We know a great deal of construction is being carried on by the dominion government, some of it by the Department of National Defence. That department is erecting married quarters and barracks for single men in strategic centres which might be considered likely targets by the enemy. I hope these suggestions in regard to providing basements which can be converted into shelters will be noted by the Minister of National Defence, and that where these barracks blocks are being constructed consideration will be given to these matters. That has not been the case in the past; there are no basement shelters now. As construction goes on I hope those things will be provided. As I said before, I think we have underlined the importance of civil defence, and I do not intend to pursue the subject further.


Douglas Scott Harkness: One question was brought to my mind by the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo. In outlining these specific expenditures for civil defence the minister mentioned the sum of $350,000 for the acquisition and construction of buildings and works including the acquisition of land. Is that intended for administration buildings, or is it to make a start on some type of shelter, or is it for experimentation in regard to shelters, or what is it for?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was intended for a
structure to house the technical training school now in operation at Connaught Ranges. While I am on my feet I might give the hon. member some information I could not give a

short time ago. The $20,000 for communications equipment will be used largely for a certain type of walkie-talkie set that has been found useful in this work. I only want to say to the hon. member for Nanaimo that in the spirit of understanding he has shown I thank him for his offer of co-operation which in any event, apart from his declaration, I was sure would be forthcoming.


The Chairman:: Is it agreed that the debate on civil defence is now concluded?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the sub-item carry?
Sub-item agreed to.
Professional and special services, $200,000.


George Randolph Pearkes: Could we have an explanation of this?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I observe that the same amount is allocated to this sub-item this year as last year. Would the minister give us a breakdown of the purposes for which this money is spent and the persons by whom it is received?


Brooke Claxton: This has to do with inspection service. It provides for inspection by commercial firms, to which I referred last night; the U.S. navy, the U.K. government and Canadian Arsenals Limited; also for payment to the Canadian Commercial Corporation on a pro rata basis for the Canadian corps of commissionaires required for security purposes at No. 2 building, Ottawa. The details are armaments branch, guns and carriages, motor transport, ammunition, $75,000; technical services branches, chemicals, $10,000; ships branch, material, $92,000; clothing stores branch, textiles and barracks stores, $22,400; Canadian corps of commissionaires, to which I have already referred, $600. The figure is the same as for last year, and is all related to professional services in relation to inspection.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand these are commercial firms which are employed in addition to the inspectors paid under the preceding item about which we had a good deal of discussion?


Brooke Claxton: That is right, except that we also pay the U.S. navy, the U.K. government and Canadian Arsenals Limited as well as the corps of commissionaires that small amount of $600.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the minister tell the committee what kind of service the Canadian Commercial Corporation renders this department for which it has to pay under the administration item?


Brooke Claxton: We share a building with C.C.C. and pay half the cost of guarding the building by the corps of commissionaires.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, I may have misunderstood the minister. I understood he said the department pays $600 to the corps of commissionaires. That was one item. Then, there were three large items on which I thought he said that either the $92,000 or the $22,400 went to the Canadian Commercial Corporation.


Brooke Claxton: No, I am sorry. The only
payment under this is to the Canadian corps of commissionaires $600 for half the cost of guarding the building which we share with the Canadian Commercial Corporation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry that I did not keep up with the minister. Will the minister tell me again what the $22,400 item is?


Brooke Claxton: Clothing and stores branch,
textiles and bag stores, $22,400. It is paid to outside inspectors to inspect these items.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is, the Canadian Commercial Corporation were making sure for the department that the clothing ordered is up to standard?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are there any oculists employed or paid under this item?


Brooke Claxton: No; the only oculists that
we have would be under the payments for the navy, army and air force, votes for medical services.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I have a matter I want to
discuss under this item, sir. I do not know of any other way in which I can do so except under this particular item. To me, it is an important matter. At'the annual meeting of the Canadian Tuberculosis Association held in Toronto between May 7 and 11, there was a very interesting discussion concerning the use of BCG and the tuberculin testing of recruits for the services. Arising out of that discussion, which I may say was participated in by doctors from all across the country, a resolution was passed. Really, it was the adoption of the resolution of the management committee, which had been passed and sent to the Minister of National Defence in September of last year. I should like to have this resolution inscribed, Mr. Chairman, so that you can follow the matter. The resolution reads as follows:
Whereas the tuberculosis control program throughout Canada has led to a marked Increase in the numbers of negative reactors and whereas it is acknowledged that through contact with infectious tuberculosis the chances of negative tuberculin reactors developing tuberculosis is materially greater than otherwise; and whereas a negative X-ray plate can provide no Indication of the tuberculin status of the individual, therefore, the Canadian Tuberculosis
80709-219J
Supply-National Defence
Association recommends that the tuberculin status be determined by the use of the tuberculin test at the time of enlistment examination, and if possible, extended to all service personnel at present enlisted. In further support of this resolution, consideration is given to the increased risk of tuberculosis infection in countries other than Canada and the United States, and the consequent influence on pensionable cases resulting from such circumstance.
The association regrets that the Department of National Defence has not seen fit, up to the present, to adopt this procedure. The C.T.A. urges that prompt action be taken in this matter, considering the present world situation.
The Canadian Tuberculosis Association also endorsed a further resolution of the management committee dated September 25, 1950, which reads as follows:
That, whereas the number of negative tuberculin reactors in the recruiting ages is rapidly increasing, and whereas this situation means an increased susceptibility to tuberculosis, and whereas such people if sent in the course of duty to countries where infectious tuberculosis is much more prevalent than at home, and whereas BCG vaccination of negative tuberculin does provide an appreciable degree of protection against the development of tuberculosis, therefore the Canadian Tuberculosis Association recommends that negative tuberculin reactors be vaccinated with BCG vaccine to reduce the hazard of tuberculosis as experienced in the course of duty.
Now, Mr. Chairman., both of those resolutions were adopted by the management committee of the Canadian Tuberculosis Association on September 25, 1950. They were both communicated to the Minister of National Defence at that time; and, as I understand, the reasons were given for those resolutions being passed. The minister was urged to follow the course suggested by the resolutions. Up to the present at least no action has been taken in the matter. I understand, though I do not know of my own knowledge, that the medical men of the services are in full accord with this program. Certainly, all the doctors that were present at that annual meeting, as I say, doctors from all across the dominion, thoroughly approved of it. The suggestion is that sending recruits, say to Korea, without proper testing is sending them into very great danger indeed of contracting tuberculosis if they have not been inoculated with BCG.
I am told that the cost is very, very little indeed. The cost of testing, and the cost of inoculating with BCG would be less than ten cents per recruit. The time required is, I believe, not more than forty-eight hours. I understand that negative reactors to the tuberculin tests, when they have received an inoculation from BCG, have more or less about 90 per cent protecr tion against contracting tuberculosis. Now, Mr. Chairman, when we take into account, not only the humanitarian principle involved but the possibility of boys and young men
3434	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence being inducted into the forces without proper protection against this germ, that of itself is a very strong appeal indeed. Then, when we look at the financial part of it, and when we look at the huge amount that must be paid out for pensions for those who have contracted tuberculosis while in the armed services, the cost of sanatorium treatment for them, then indeed it becomes a very serious problem. I understand that in the last war when the men from provinces which have a very low incidence of tuberculosis, such as Saskatchewan, were exposed to tuberculosis in the course of their duties, they picked it up much quicker than those from provinces which had a higher incidence of the disease.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, it strikes me as being of the utmost importance that these recommendations of the Canadian Tuberculosis Association should be adopted. I see no reason at all, no excuse on the ground of delay, in getting the men into the forces or on the ground of the costs. In fact, I cannot see any grounds at all for not following that course. I am told that the minister's idea is that this should be a more or less voluntary decision on the part of a recruit, whether or not he will submit to it. Many hon. members are fully aware of what the ordinary recruit would do if such a proposition were put to him. I suggest quite definitely to the minister that this program should be adopted, and there should not be any question of its being voluntary. It should be a compulsory inoculation at the time the recruit is inducted. I should like to hear a comment from the minister.


Brooke Claxton: I can appreciate the representations put forward by the hon. member for St. John's East. I think it was in 1944 or 1945, when I had the honour of being Minister of National Health and Welfare, that we introduced the BCG through Dr. Frappier, particularly in connection with the prevention or arrest of tuberculosis among Indians. The area in which the tests were first conducted by us on a large scale in Canada was in Qu'Appelle in the province of Saskatchewan. That was in 1945, I think. Then I also became familiar with this in Paris in 1946, at the Pasteur institute and in other places had representations made to me about it. Canada has made good progress in this direction.
In the province of Quebec, my own province, this testing or inoculation is carried out particularly with young infants, and it seems to have been very successful.
With regard to personnel in the armed forces, we have X-rays and very careful


medical examinations. The incidence of tuberculosis among members of the armed forces is small. There are some risks and uncertainties involved, but we are in close consultation with the Canadian Tuberculosis Association, the Department of National Health and Welfare, particularly, and the great expert of Canada, Dr. Wherrett. We shall be very glad to take into consideration the representations of my hon. friend.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I recall, the minister said that in connection with the vote of $200,000 the amount of $75,000 was for inspection in the manufacture of guns, commercial inspection. It is quite a large item. I did not keep up with the minister in my notes but, as I recall, it was for that purpose. Can the minister give us the relationship between what is paid for this type of inspection of armament production and the quite large number of inspectors within the department, of whom we just heard 727 are paid under the vote that we have just passed? If we are paying these people-and I think it is quite important that we should have at any rate inspection of production of our armaments-why then, if we have these presumably well qualified people who are in the various plants producing for us, should we in addition have to pay for professional and special services? Why should we have to pay other people to do the same work?


Brooke Claxton: I think the answer to the
hon. member is that this payment, which is relatively small, in view of the amount spent in inspection, and also the amount spent for equipment, is due to two causes. Either we have peak loads where we have a shipment of arms to another country on a special order, or else we are producing arms on the orders of another country such as the United States or the United Kingdom and we pay their inspector to inspect for us as well as for themselves; and of course we either give the goods away or else collect the amount in the total payment we receive.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do I understand that this
would be in the nature of a contingency as though perhaps the 727 people who it is anticipated will be paid during the coming year out of the vote we have just passed may not be enough to do the various jobs that we may be called upon to do, or it may be necessary to employ outside people? Is that the nature of this particular portion of this $200,000? Is it in the nature of a contingency fund?


Brooke Claxton: Part of this amount would
be paid for the inspection by the United States individual inspectors of equipment that we buy in the United States, which is

delivered to us. The other element is payment to Canadian inspecting Arms to take care of peak loads and is contingent, based on our experience during the past year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If it is a contingent item to
an extent, at any rate, what was the expenditure last year?-because I observe that the estimates for the two years are the same.


Brooke Claxton: We have the expenditures
estimated for the year 1950-51-the books are not closed yet-in primaries, but we have not got that broken down because the bills have not all been added up. I can get that for the hon. member.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister say a word
or two in enlargement of the general situation that there are peak loads where I understand it is necessary to employ outside personnel? Is it considered that it is not efficient or possible to anticipate just how many inspectional personnel you need in the department, permanent staff, to be paid out of the item "civil salaries and wages"? Would it be considered less efficient to employ enough persons to provide for this contingency, and estimate accordingly in the first sub-item, rather than providing this fairly large sum of $200,000 for unforeseen contingencies? If we are to have this contingency, to what extent are we unable to anticipate it?


Brooke Claxton: We have a good deal of difficulty in anticipating them, because this year we will be spending several hundred million dollars on equipment; and how much we get from the manufacturers at any time depends on some events outside our own control.
Now, if we maintain an inspection staff sufficient to deal with the peak, then it will be uneconomical because they will be unemployed at certain times. Also, we cannot anticipate when the peaks will occur, because they may depend on the flow of United States components in Canadian equipment. Therefore, in some instances it is more economical to employ outside inspectors to supplement our own inside inspectors rather than to keep a large staff going and not have them fully employed the year round.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think that is a reasonable
explanation. Would the minister then be able to tell me where he would turn for this type of inspection services? Can he give us, for instance, the names of some of the firms he employed? Can he give us the names of those he employed to inspect delivery of guns? May I put a concrete question? Surely the minister would not employ the inspector from the firm which is making the
Supply-National Defence guns? Where does he find these people? How is he able to pick them out so as to employ them and to turn them on to somebody else's produce?


Brooke Claxton: There are a considerable number of firms with professional standing who do this kind of work. I could not, quite frankly, give the hon. member details as to our employment of any of these firms in the year ahead. But there are such firms as Warnock, in the field of mechanical engineering, and Rankin; and J. T. Donald and Company in the field of chemicals.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And for clothing?


Brooke Claxton: I do not think we would use one for clothing. We have our own inspectors for clothing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thought the minister told us that one of the components of the $200,000 was for the inspection of clothing.


Brooke Claxton: I gave the figure of $22,400 for clothing and stores branch, technical and barracks stores. I would be surprised to hear that our inspectors do not inspect all the clothing. It may be possible that we might employ an outside firm to help us over a peak load. We have had several peak loads. However, I will look into that.
Sub-item agreed to.
Defence services-
Travelling and removal expenses, $379,000.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks. I am going to ask the minister whether this item provides far officers to take ladies to cocktail parties when off duty. Before he answers I wish to bring to his attention certain facts. The hon. member for Fraser Valley in the public accounts committee, as well as some other hon. members, directed the attention of the committee to the fact that army cars were being used improperly, at times, and brought certain incidents to the attention of the deputy minister, who was a witness at the time.
The deputy minister replied that a series of checks was made, on occasions, or generally, and that the system was, that if a private soldier who was driving a general who used an army vehicle improperly cares to report that general, he may do so. Well, I can see a private reporting a general! That would be the end of the private.
I wish to bring to the attention of the minister the Vancouver Sun of May 19, which contains a whole page which apparently is intended as a build-up for the army's gala ball. The heading is, "Army Polishes up for Gala Ball". It shows a type of advertising

Supply-National Defence and pictures that would make Cromwell turn over in his grave. We see in the top picture a luscious beauty in evening dress reclining, somewhat after the fashion of Cleopatra. She is reclining in a most languid manner while being shown, the operation of a machine gun. I cannot believe that that would add much to the Canadian recruiting drive.


George Randolph Pearkes: Oh, I think so.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: One would think we were trying to defend a Hail-Hail-The-Gang's-All-Here sort of civilization. I wish to bring to the attention of the minister particularly another picture about six inches by eight inches in size. This is the picture of a jeep in which there are two officers andi two attractive looking women. Under the picture it says:
The army has never been the same since the first jeep was built. The busy little vehicle plays a dozen important roles in its military career, but here's a brand new one. This gay foursome has commandeered one for party transportation as they attend a pre-military ball affair.
I made inquiries as to what the "premilitary ball affair" was, and I am informed it was a pre-military ball cocktail party.


George Randolph Pearkes: What is that?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A cocktail party prior to a military ball.


George Randolph Pearkes: Oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: But my point is this, that we see in this picture an army vehicle paid for out of public money, and operated with gasoline paid for at public expense, which would possibly be meeting workers coming out of plants, workers with lunch buckets in their hands. Does that build up morale- when they are being asked to pay 20 per cent surtax only to have officers and their wives or friends ride around in government jeeps and government property, as the picture indicates? And it is not only this picture, but if hon. members would look at the Vancouver Province of May 19, the same date, they would see another picture of a jeep showing two army officers and two other ladies being invited in to have a ride. Apparently in that case however the ladies thought it would be rough riding, and they did not go.
This indicates however that these army vehicles are being used for other than army purposes in off-duty periods. There is much more of that going on in. this country than, I am sure, the minister realizes. What would be the attitude of a working woman walking down the street and seeing these people, who live at a very high standard compared with
[Mr. Herridge.}

that of the average worker-people dressed in furs and frills riding down the street in an army jeep at public expense?
Then, in addition to that, a gentleman came to me out of the gallery of this chamber this afternoon and told me he was from Montreal. He said, "I have been interested in this discussion"-and he was referring to questions asked by hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party, sitting to my right. He said to me, "My near neighbour is a provost marshal in Montreal, and you can tell the minister for me that that gentleman, regardless of what the deputy minister says, has his children driven to a private school every morning in an army car, by an army chauffeur, and brought home every night in that army car by the army chauffeur, and taken on week-end trips at the country's expense."
I would like the minister to explain why these vehicles are used on those occasions, and if that is permitted under army regulations, and under his administration.


Mr. Mott:: I think I know what the hon. member is referring to. I saw that in the paper, but I do not think he is making it clear. Was that not when -the new brigadier was taking over command in British Columbia at Vancouver?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, this was for the pregala ball party.


William Malcolm Mott: If the hon. member would look at it he would see that the ladies are in evening dress, and that the jeep was just photographed for the purposes of the newspaper. It is only a little bit of advertising of the officers ball on that occasion, and I suggest the hon. member should not have brought it up in the way that he has, or should not have made the suggestion that it is being driven around Vancouver for that purpose.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The newspaper says so.


William Malcolm Mott: I know it says so-but you know what newspapers are.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is in the Vancouver Sun.


Brooke Claxton: I am obliged to the hon. member for Kootenay West who has brought this matter to my attention. First, with regard to the officer in the provost corps at Montreal, if what the hon. member says is so, then I must say it is strictly against regulations and will be dealt with accordingly. I shall look into it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Thank you.


Brooke Claxton: Then, with regard to the occasion to which he has referred1, and to

this picture of officers, and others, attending an army ball-well, I do not know; I am not terribly familiar with those things.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Brooke Claxton: But I should think that anyone who was would recognize at once that these pictures were taken with some view to having them appear in a social column or some other column of a newspaper for publicity purposes.
I am not too sure they are bad publicity; that is a question of opinion. Perhaps I might think they are bad or good publicity while others might not. I saw this, and looked into it, and I am assured, with regard to this picture of the two officers and their wives in the jeep, that the picture was taken in the armoury at the request of the photographer of the Vancouver Sun and that, for the purpose, the jeep was backed up against the wall of the armoury, and not one ounce of gasoline was used.


Mr. Wright:: I have been totalling up the
travelling and removal expenses and freight, express and cartage for the army, navy and air force and I find it comes to about $32 million. How does the department divide this business between the two main railroads?


Brooke Claxton: I could look up the traffic
for 1950-51, but as I remember it is almost 50-50. Where one railroad provides a better service, we use that railroad. Where there are alternative services available an attempt at equalization is made. As I remember, and I do not necessarily indicate the exact figures, it was about $1,500,000 for one and $1,400,000 for the other.
Sub-item agreed to.
Telephones, telegrams and other communication services, $26,500.


George Randolph Pearkes: I understand that the army
has a special telephone service of its own, and under army a large sum of money is provided for that purpose, well over $1 million. Under headquarters we have this item of $26,500 which apparently is paid for services other than those provided by the army. Is that paid to civilian companies? Does the army service the administration branch of the department?


Brooke Claxton: This amount of $26,500 is
paid to outside telephone and telegraph agencies. The total cost of the tri-service communications system is far greater than that. I would say that 95 per cent of all communications by telegraph or radioteletype between the three services are carried across Canada by tri-service communications set-up.
This service went into effect at the beginning of last year. The navy, army and air
Supply-National Defence force cover all the main centres of Canada on a 24 hour basis. There is no duplication. The navy operates the terminals at Esquimau and Halifax, the army operate in Montreal, the air force in Winnipeg and so on. The service duplicates to a considerable degree the existing commercial services across Canada. There are between 1,500 and 2,000 personnel involved. In addition to carrying almost all the traffic for the armed forces a good deal of traffic is carried for other government departments. As indicated before, during emergencies this service is used to carry commercial traffic as well.
The service is almost fully occupied today and is capable of carrying a heavier load in the event of war. We consider it essential to maintain it in peacetime and keep it built up so it wiU be available in the event of war.
It has the most modern equipment. There is some radioteletype and some line-teletype, and the whole system is connected with similar systems in the United States, Great Britain, Australia and throughout the world. It carries all ordinary traffic that can be sent by wire.
In addition to the operations of the magnitude I have indicated it is necessary for many telephone calls to be sent out, and this vote of $26,500 is necessary. For instance, there may be a conference of senior officers or a collecting of last-minute recruiting returns. Telephone calls may even be necessary in order to answer parliamentary inquiries. There is an increase of only $1,700 over last year.


George Randolph Pearkes: This is most interesting
because I believe this is the first official announcement, certainly the first in parliament, of the establishment of this triservice communications system. Has it been used in time of national emergency, such as the emergency which caused the special session of parliament last year?


Brooke Claxton: I am not so sure that it was used in connection with the emergency that necessitated the special session, but it was used in a major way in connection with the Fraser valley floods. The ordinary commercial communications broke down and the services took over and carried all communications into the Fraser valley and also into Vancouver to a considerable degree as well as to many other areas. 1 remember authorizing the dispatch of 23 operators by air from Montreal in order to help to carry the load. For several days most personal and commercial traffic was carried by this service.
The same thing occurred during the Winnipeg flood, but to a minor degree. During a snowslide in British Columbia the same thing occurred. I remember visiting one of
3438	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence these stations in Winnipeg and I was told that it had carried commercial traffic, including 20,000 words for the Canadian Press, during the previous 24 hours. There was a breakdown in the maritime services and our service carried everything for 24 hours for both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National telegraph systems. It has been of great value in meeting civilian emergencies.
It meets all service needs. We carry thousands of messages each month for other government departments. All communications with the Northwest Territories and the Arctic are carried by this service.


George Randolph Pearkes: When the service is used by other government departments do they pay for that? Would the Canadian Press pay for what service they obtained, and would the Canadian Pacific pay for what messages of theirs were carried?


Brooke Claxton: Other government departments do not pay, but commercial users would unless the message was carried on compassionate grounds.


George Randolph Pearkes: I appreciate fully the value of this tri-service system in the event of war or national emergency and I realize the importance of having it maintained with trained personnel, but I wonder if the minister can give any indication as to how the cost of maintaining such a service would compare with the cost of using similar civilian transcontinental services?


Brooke Claxton: I am afraid I would not be able to obtain an equivalent figure for the civilian services. But it is not competitive in a real sense because we engage in training personnel, operating in isolated centres, operating non-commercial routes. I am afraid, therefore, that I could hot give any comparison. It has just been suggested to me that the cost would be higher because of security requirements. Over this system we can carry all kinds of security restricted messages which could not be carried over commercial systems but which require processing through the ordinary ciphering and deciphering equipment and so on.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is there any duplication at all in connection with the government telephone services which are also provided in remote parts of this country under the Department of Transport?


Brooke Claxton: Following the inquiry that was made, I think in the public accounts committee, we have looked into the matter and we can find no duplication at all.
Sub-item agreed to.
Printing of departmental reports and other publications, $122,500.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I notice that this particular item is a little bit more than twice what it was last year. I was wondering if the minister could tell us what the reason for this increase is and what publications and departmental reports this item covers other than this report of the Department of National Defence which we all received. I ask that question particularly because I notice that the same item appears in the navy, the army and the air force, and quite large sums are involved in each of those branches. I was wondering exactly what was covered by this particular item so far as headquarters is concerned, the administrative department.


Brooke Claxton: In answer to the hon. member, I can say that almost all the increase is accounted for by the fact that this year we are providing quite a considerable item for civil defence in the estimates of this department. The amount provided for 1950-51 was $60,000. The amount now asked for is $122,500. The increase is $62,500. Of the increase, $51,500 is applicable to civil defence, so that only $11,000 is applicable to the Department of National Defence, and that is owing to the increase in activities and the expansion of the size of the department.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What other publications are put out, so far as headquarters are concerned, besides this report on national defence? This year the only other thing I have seen is "Canada's Defence Program" which is practically a reprint of the minister's speech on February 5 in this house, with a little addition to it. What other publications are put out besidesi those two?


Brooke Claxton: In the department we issue a good many appeals for support; that is, requests for support for the work of the armed forces. For instance, there was a letter I recently addressed to over 3,500 or more employers asking them to support the work of the armed forces of Canada. I believe that comes out of this item. During the year there are a good many similar letters or appeals that require to be issued in that way. There are no other major items. This is made up of a multitude of small items.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As the hon. member for Calgary East has pointed out, this same item is duplicated in other parts of the departmental estimates. To be specific, it is duplicated seven times, and the total of those other seven items is in the neighbourhood of $2 million. That makes me wonder whether this could not be done in another way. For instance, at page 270 the navy has an item of $344,000; the army has an item of $495,000; and air has an item of $1,049,000; under

aerial photographic survey there is an item of $1,650; and under defence research and development there is an item of $100,550, to name some of the larger ones.
I should like to ask whether any of these sums and any of the sum before us of $122,500 is in connection with the recruiting program. Whether it is or whether it is not, I should like to know why all the various departmental reports-because the wording of the item is "printing of departmental reports and other publications"-are not centralized under the departmental administration. It occurs to me, at first sight at any rate, that for the army to have a separate publications branch and for the navy, the air force, defence research and development, and aerial photographic survey each to have a separate one, is something that indicates a little bit of inefficiency. It appears to me that if each of these was to be centralized, a more efficient, a more closely interrelated, and probably a less expensive job could be done. I come back to the point that these other seven items in the department total $2 million.


Brooke Claxton: I can understand the hon. member's difficulty. But the printing is not done by the navy, the army and the air force. All printing contracts are placed by the service concerned, through the deputy minister's office, with the king's printer or under his authority with some outside printer. There is no competition and no inefficiency of administration. The printing of course amounts to a large sum, as the hon. member knows, having been an officer himself.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does it include all departments?


Brooke Claxton: It includes a lot of work instruction books, drill books, pamphlets, training manuals and the like. Each service is responsible for the production of the material for those, but the order for their printing is placed, through the deputy minister, with the king's printer or, through him, with an outside printer. That is subject to few exceptions, in respect of which we do some printing within the department itself, largely relating to security material. When you consider that this relates to the three services, and the defence research board, which has a good deal of printing of restricted material to do, you can understand why it appears under seven headings.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand the minister to say that the only control or co-ordination is through the deputy minister. These various branches or services put their requirements up and they go through the deputy minister
Supply-National Defence who, I presume, must approve them. I am just wondering whether it would not be better to have a central office. Since you have an item under departmental administration, I am wondering whether it would not be better to have that office, as it were, coordinating all the printing requirements. Does it include, for instance, such things as 'the part II orders of the various services?


Brooke Claxton: No; part II orders are
mimeographed. Naval service orders, army orders and air force orders are printed through the king's printer but all the subordinate orders are done in mimeographed form.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But these various items would cover the cost of that, would they not?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The words "other publications" are quite wide. Does this include anything in connection with recruiting?


Brooke Claxton: I take it my hon. friend is
now referring to item 9 in the summary of standard objects. That does not include recruiting, which is the next item, No. 10, which deals with films, displays, broadcasting, advertising, and so on.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not want to anticipate
that item, but there is no item 10 under departmental administration.


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not want to anticipate
another branch or item that will come later, but I do suggest that national defence headquarters should control the recruiting program and its set-up, whereas we find it broken down under army, navy and air force. How does that work?


Brooke Claxton: We are anticipating, but I
am very glad to do it. To deal with recruiting for the three services we have set up under the direction of the personnel members committee an interservice recruiting committee. As hon. members may recall, the personnel members committee consists of the heads of personnel of the three services. In the case of the navy it is the chief naval personnel, the CNP as he is called. In the case of the army it is the adjutant general, and in the case of the air force the air *member for personnel. This committee deals with all personnel matters affecting the three services, including recruiting. Subordinate to them is the joint service recruiting committee and the joint service advertising committee consisting of officers appointed to represent the navy, army and air members of PMC. They make recommendations to PMC in regard to recruiting

Supply-National Defence matters. We have at least two general sessions a year, which I usually attend as do the members of the PMC, the joint services recruiting committee and the advertising agencies concerned. We draw up programs for recruiting advertising. Those programs are modified and changed from week to week and month to month, because this is a very sensitive operation; but there is complete tri-service co-operation.
Once the recruiting plan has been agreed to as between the three services and approved by myself, we work it out in financial terms. There is a financial adjustment, which is almost always downward, and the actual procedure of accounting is handled through the deputy minister. So there is complete unified control of the whole operation from start to finish.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will not pursue that at the moment beyond saying it seems a little odd that the expense should be allotted to the services, which must be rather arbitrary, instead of the over-all recruiting program being accounted for under departmental administration. However, that detail can be discussed later.
I should like to follow up the same point, if I may, in connection with item No. 9 in the general summary of standard objects, which is the printing of departmental reports and other publications. How do you decide which service will have so much money to spend; or why is it not simply decided that so much money will be allowed for the printing of departmental reports and publications and put that money under departmental administration. From there on you could control the expenditure by each branch of the service so the total amount would not be overspent.


Brooke Claxton: We are dealing only with
administration at present, and as the hon. member can see the increase is very small.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is $62,500.


Brooke Claxton: Of that $51,500 is applicable to civil defence, which we did not have at all in the previous year. To answer the other question as to the build-up of budgets, of course we get into a pretty big field there. Each service builds up the budget for that service. It plans its work for the year ahead, in fact for three years ahead. It discusses those plans with the other services in the chiefs of staff committee and at other levels. The deputy minister or his representative sits in at all those discussions, and common factors for the build-up of all the budget elements are agreed to so that it is worked out that a man in the army will cost as much as a man in the air force doing the same

job, and so on. All those things are pretty well worked out now, and we have very good methods of computing costs.
With regard to manpower, they relate this to the expected build-up through the year month by month, and increase or decrease the grants for pay and allowances accordingly. The same thing is done with regard to food, and so on, averaged out for the year. Then they look ahead and see what construction is needed, and this is considered so as not to be out of line with the other services. Equipment is the biggest and most difficult element. We have endless sessions from about August to November within the department working on our own estimates as between the three service heads and the deputy minister, and finally with myself, but always in consultation with representatives of the treasury. Ultimately we bring forward to the cabinet defence committee a plan for the next year, and that is discussed at a good many meetings. They settle on a plan; then we go back and cost that plan, and having costed it put it forward to the defence committee again, and bring it on to the cabinet. Then it enters into the estimates.
That is the process followed in every country, as far as I know. It is very convenient to have it done under the heads of the navy, army and air force, each keeping their own figures, making their own estimates and looking after their own appropriations; and that is all done subject to tri-service co-operation and- departmental control through the deputy minister. I know of no other country where it is so unified as in our case, where we have a single vote, a single deputy minister, a single minister and a single department.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The only other question I
think I will ask on this has to do with a comparison between the vote this year and last year. This shows here that the vote for 1950-51 was $60,000, but when I look at the estimates for last year under departmental administration, the only place where I can find figures for the corresponding item is under the sundries item, where it states that sundries including printing and stationery, et cetera, amounted to $186,637. Is that $60,000 the amount which was extracted from the $186,000 which was for printing?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, that is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that an estimate or an actual expenditure?


Brooke Claxton: It is an estimate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Have you got the figure for the expenditure as yet?


Brooke Claxton: Not yet.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, in connection with this $122,000, $51,500 is for civil defence or something along that line, which leaves $71,000. So far as I can make out that $71,000 was the expenditure for printing this report of the Department of National Defence, the odd white paper such as this one which was issued a short time ago, and the printing of a few thousand form letters which the minister sends out from time to time. It seems to me that is a great deal of money for these printing activities. Can the minister tell us what the actual cost of printing this report of the Department of National Defence was?


Brooke Claxton: That is done by the king's printer, and it would not cost very much. But the inspection services, for example, which have to provide technical specifications with regard to a great number of items would be provided for out of this item.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is for the printing of reports and other publications. From everything the minister said before, I have certainly understood it was to cover the cost of printing this report, these white papers and some form letters that he sends out from time to time. Surely, this does not cover inspection services of any sort.


Brooke Claxton: This is the ninth of the headings laid down by the -treasury board for the uniform presentation of estimates to parliament. This is the first year this has been done, and we have conformed to the system laid down. This is item 9, and we have put under it items that the treasury told us should be put under that item.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What are they, then, besides the actual printing of these reports?


Brooke Claxton: That is the printing for the department, not paid for by the navy, army or air force; the report, the circular letters; printing by the inspection services, and by the director of public relations for the department.


Howard Charles Green: Any speeches?


Brooke Claxton: None at all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I am still rather in the dark as to what these other items of printing are in addition to the reports and letters the minister has mentioned, as well as the odd white paper. What
Supply-National Defence printing would be put out, so far as the administration branch is concerned, by those people he has mentioned?


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad to get that information for you.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the sub-item carry?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Subject to this information being given.


Brooke Claxton: I shall open with a statement containing this information the next time the committee meets.
Sub-item agreed to.
Office stationery, supplies and equipment, $111,000.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, in connection with films, displays, advertising and other informational publicity-


Some hon. Members:: No, it is office stationery.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am talking about the films, displays and advertising-


Edmund Davie Fulton: On what page is that?


Charles Edward Johnston: I am on page 271.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are on page 269.
Sub-item agreed to.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, on
Monday we shall revert to legislation and take up Bill No. 198, an act to amend the Customs Act. It is in committee, and we have completed about half of it. Then, we shall take up Bill No. 293, an act respecting units of length and mass; then Bill No. 191, an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act; Bill No. 192, an act to amend the Petition of Right Act; Bill No. 338, an act to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act; the resolution in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) to amend the Veterans Insurance Act; the bill respecting the Canada post office. If we were fortunate enough to be able to complete that business, I would move to go into supply and call three departments.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]


Monday, May 28, 1951